Schaeffer v. De Grottola
| Decision Date | 25 February 1914 |
| Parties | SCHAEFFER v. DE GROTTOLA. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari to Court of Common Pleas, Essex County.
Petition under Workmen's Compensation Act by George De Grottola against Frank A. Schaeffer. Judgment for petitioner, and defendant brings certiorari. Affirmed.
Argued November term, 1913, before SWAYZE and BERGEN, JJ.
Benjamin M. Weinberg, of Newark, for plaintiff.
Conover English, of Newark, for defendant.
The petitioner was employed by Hezhelmelch at shaving skins. The work was done in Schaeffer's factory. Hezhelmelch ran out of skins to shave, and thereupon Schaeffer employed the petitioner to shave skins at so much per dozen. Schaeffer had at that time 20-odd dozen skins of a certain kind, and was trying out a new line of goods. He had no expectation of having more of the same kind. His regular business was with a different kind. The petitioner was able to shave 30 or more dozen a day, so that the 20-odd dozen was not a full day's work. He was injured at 11 a. m. the first day he worked for Schaeffer. He had then earned $1.60.
Two questions are raised: (1) Was the employment casual? (2) Was it proper to allow $10 per week as compensation?
The first question is not wholly free from doubt, but we think the trial judge might properly find that the employment was not casual. The petitioner testified that Schaeffer told him, "Come Monday morning, I will give you some work to shave the skins," that the price would be 15 cents a dozen, and that if the petitioner did better work the price would be 16 cents. If the trial judge believed this testimony as he had the right to do, it was at least a fair inference that the intent was not to limit the work to the 20 dozen skins of the special kind, but to give the petitioner employment at piece work in Schaeffer's regular business without limit as to time. Such employment we think would not be casual.
We have more difficulty with the basis on which the compensation was computed. There was no daily wage earned in Schaeffer's employ. Our statute does not contain the provision found in the English statute as to average wages, and the case seems not to be within the express language of the act, which makes no provision for the case of piece work. It allows 50 per cent. of daily wages, with a maximum allowance of $10 per week. The petitioner had earned $1.60 up to 11 o'clock in the morning. He was capable of doing 30 dozen or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Holzsager v. Warburton
-
Mahoney v. Nitroform Co.
...discernible in the several decisions of our courts however the statute has been phrased from time to time. See Schaeffer v. De Grottola, 85 N.J.L. 444, 89 A. 921 (Sup.Ct.1914); Smolenski v. Eastern Coal Dock Co., 87 N.J.L. 26, 93 A. 85 (Sup.Ct.1915), affirmed 88 N.J.L. 387, 95 A. 1079 (E. &......
-
Graham v. Green
...to the 1919 amendment in effect support this view. Mueller v. Oelkers Mfg. Co., 36 N.J.L.J. 117 (C.P.1913); Schaeffer v. De Grottola, 85 N.J.L. 444, 89 A. 921 (Sup.Ct.1914); Scott v. Payne Brothers, Inc., 85 N.J.L. 446, 89 A. 927 (Sup.Ct.1914). The 1919 amendment is even more confining, for......
-
State ex rel. Bettman v. Christen
...but the nature of the employment. Sabella v. Brazileiro, 86 N. J. Law, 505, 91 A. 1032;Schaeffer v. De Grottola, 85 N. J. Law, 444, 89 A. 921;American Steel Foundries v. Industrial Board, 284 Ill. 99, 119 N. E. 902;Caca v. Woodruff, 70 Ind. App. 93, 123 N. E. 120;Miller & Lux, Inc., v. Indu......