Rumbolo v. Erb
| Decision Date | 01 April 1941 |
| Citation | 20 A.2d 54,19 N.J.Misc. 311 |
| Parties | RUMBOLO v. ERB. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Common Pleas |
Appeal from New Jersey Department of Labor—Workmen's Compensation Bureau.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Rosalino Rumbolo against Mary Erb, trading as Market Tavern.
Petition dismissed.
Joseph L. Tavormina, of Elizabeth, for petitioner-appellee.
Frank J. Burns, of Elizabeth, for respondent-appellant.
Petitioner was employed to sweep and clean around the tavern of respondent, and while sweeping, an argument arose as to what should be done. Petitioner claims that respondent assaulted him and permanently injured him. I have carefully considered the different versions of the affray and other evidence, and find as follows:
First: The Compensation Court has no jurisdiction in a case of this character. Suits for assault could always be brought at common law by employer and employee and there is no reason why the act should cover a case of direct assault by the employer personally upon the employee. Such cases (as this one) usually involve mutual charges of assault and countersuits and counterclaims and there are, of course, no provisions in the Compensation Act for counterclaims or set-offs by the employer; nor is there any provision for adjustment of verdicts as there is in the case where the employee can also recover against a third party or a fellow workman. Obviously, it was not intended that the Compensation Court should have exclusive jurisdiction over the workman's claim against his employer for a personal assault. This would leave the employer with no remedy for his claim that the workman assaulted him or would require the employer to sue the employee in the common-law court while the employee sued him in the Compensation Court. It is hardly necessary to suggest the absurdity of such a procedure.
Second: There is nothing to suggest a reasonable risk of assault in what the employee was called upon to do to fulfill his contract of service. An ordinary fight of this kind is not one of the risks of such employment. The argument obviously arose because the petitioner chose to argue with his employer rather than to obey her reasonable instructions, and there is uncontradicted evidence that he had made trouble for her on other occasions and that on this occasion he ran out when she threatened to call the police. It is also significant that the Deputy Commissioner did not find that there was an assault,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Woulfe v. Atl. City Steel Pier Co.
-
Martin v. Snuffy's Steak House
...162 A. 250 (Sup.Ct.1932), Lindsay v. Hoffman Beverage Co., above, 19 N.J.Misc. 356, 19 A.2d 824 (W.C.B.1941), and Rumbolo v. Erb, 19 N.J.Misc. 311, 20 A.2d 54 (C.P.1941). They belong to a period when a less liberal construction was given to our Workmen's Compensation Act, and we decline to ......
-
Breimhorst v. Beckman
... ... 52, 112 F.2d 11; Annotation, 72 A.L.R ... [ 9 ] 1 Honnold, Workmen's Compensation, s ... 87; Annotation, 72 A.L.R. 114, 117 ... [ 10 ] DeCoigne v. Ludlum Steel Co., 251 A.D ... 662, 297 N.Y.S. 636; Le Pochat v. Pendleton, 187 Misc. 296, ... 63 N.Y.S.2d 313; Rumbolo v. Erb, 20 A.2d 54, 19 N.J.Misc ... 311; Castleberry v. Frost-Johnson Lbr. Co., Tex.Com.App., 283 ... S.W. 141, affirming Tex.Civ.App., 268 S.W. 771; 6 Dunnell, ... Dig. & Supp. ss 10425, 10385, 10396; Horovitz, Injury and ... Death Under Workmen's Compensation Laws, 336; 1 ... Schneider, ... ...
-
Magliulo v. Superior Court
...v. Frost-Johnson Lumber Co., Tex.Com.App., 283 S.W. 141; Stewart v. McLellan's Stores Co., 194 S.C. 50, 9 S.E.2d 35; Rumbolo v. Erb, 20 A.2d 54, 19 N.J.Misc. 311.' Mazarredo v. Levine, 190 Misc. 953, 76 N.Y.S.2d 324, 325.' (105 Cal.App.2d at pp. 497--498, 233 P.2d at p. 614.)6 The right to ......