Rojeski v. Pennington Dairy Farms, Inc.

• Citation: 118 N.J.Law 335,192 A. 746
• Decision Date: 30 June 1937
• Docket Number: No. 206.,206.
• Parties: ROJESKI v. PENNINGTON DAIRY FARMS, Inc.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

192 A. 746

118 N.J.Law 335

ROJESKI

v. PENNINGTON DAIRY FARMS, Inc.

No. 206.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 30, 1937.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mary Rojeski, claimant, opposed by the Pennington Dairy Farms, Inc., employer. To review a judgment reversing an award of the Compensation Bureau for claimant, the claimant brings certiorari.

Reversed, and judgment of Bureau affirmed.

Argued May term, 1937, before BODINE, HEHER, and PERSKIE, JJ.

Henry Grosman and Felix Rospond, both of Newark, for prosecutrix. Cox & Walburg and Arthur F. Mead, all of Newark, for respondent.

PERSKIE, Justice.

In this workmen's compensation case we are called upon to determine the usual basic questions; did the relation of employer and employee exist at the time of the accident for which compensation is sought, and, if the answer to that question be in the affirmative, did the accident arise out of and in the course of the employment?

The facts are rather unusual. Frank Rojeski, husband of the prosecutrix, and petitioner below, was, together with several other men, employed by respondent dairy concern as a tarm hand. Board, lodging, and other facilities were furnished these men by respondent as the result of arrangements made between the latter and the wife of one of its employees. Being dissatisfied with the food served, the men complained to respondent. As a result thereof it arranged with Rojeski and his wife that the latter should take charge of the farmhouse and tend to the men. More specifically, her duties consisted of "taking care of the house," "cooking meals," "fixing the beds." She "cooked and cleaned up the house and (did the) washing and everything"; she helped awake the men early in the morning to milk the cows; she bought the food which she supplied the men. For this service it was agreed that Rojeski was to receive, in addition to his regular monthly pay, $20 a month for his own board and care and that respondent was to pay $20 a month (plus a house, wood, and two or three quarts of milk a day) for each farm hand cared for by the wife.

Accordingly, prosecutrix moved from her home and family in Trenton to the farmhouse designated by respondent and performed her part of her undertaking. There is no complaint on that score. While so employed, she was directed to move from the farmhouse first assigned to her to one of the other farmhouses on the premises, and while cleaning and repairing this last house for occupancy and service in accordance with her original agreements with respondent, she fell and suffered injuries for which she seeks compensation.

In the Bureau, the deputy commissioner determined: "I find that the respondent did give certain orders to the petitioner (prosecutrix), and had her do certain things which would indicate that she was not acting in an entirely independent manner of any supervision." Accordingly, compensation was allowed.

In the Mercer county court of common pleas, the judge held that the prosecutrix was not an employee, her "services being rendered more in the nature of those of an independent contractor, or in aiding her husband." The judgment of the Bureau was reversed. This court granted a writ of certiorari.

We are told that there is no precedent in this state for like facts or circumstances. That may be so. But that circumstance in itself is of no particular significance. For, while it is true that the particular facts and circumstances of this type of case are alone determinative of the rights and liabilities of the respective parties, yet the fundamental principles upon which those rights and liabilities are determined are firmly imbedded in our jurisprudence. They are so comprehensive that they embrace all facts and circumstances which justify the determination that the relation of employer and employee, within the purview of the act, existed at the time of the accident. What are some of these applicable, deeply rooted and firmly imbedded principles? It is well settled that to constitute the relation of employer and employee there must first be a valid contract of service. In addition, it must appear that the person to be charged as employer must have the power to control his employee with respect to the transaction out of which the injury arose. Essbee Amusement Corp. v. Greenhaus, 114 N.J. Law, 492, 493, 177 A. 562; Honnold on Workmen's Compensation, pp. 167, 168. Do the proofs bring the prosecutrix within these principles? We think they do.

First: As we have seen, there was a conference between prosecutrix, her husband and respondent, prior to the time when prosecutrix commenced her work. Terms and salary were discussed for the work to be done by both the husband and wife; their respective duties were made certain; the duties of each were separate and independent. A valid and binding contract of service was effected. The necessary relation of employer and employee was established. Corbett v. Starrett Bros. Inc., 105 N.J.Law, 228, 143 A. 352. Prosecutrix assumed and fulfilled her undertaking without complaint. Nor does it matter, as it is contended, that payment was made to the husband rather than to the wife directly for her...