Skipper v. Bay Ridge Operating Co. Clark, s. 78616, 78617.

Decision Date28 June 1944
Docket NumberNos. 78616, 78617.,s. 78616, 78617.
PartiesSKIPPER v. BAY RIDGE OPERATING CO. CLARK v. SAME.
CourtNew Jersey Department of Labor-Workmen's Compensation Bureau

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Separate proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by General Skipper and by Arthur Clark, claimants, opposed by the Bay Ridge Operating Company, employer. By stipulation, the cases were tried together.

Judgment for claimants.

Fox & Krieger (by David B. Schackner), of Newark, for petitioner.

Milton, McNulty & Augelli (by Lawrence A. Whipple), of Jersey City, for respondent.

HARRY S. MEDINETS, Deputy Commissioner.

Respondent conducted a stevedoring business. On October 2, 1943, and for some time prior and subsequent to that date, it was engaged in such activities at the Tide Water Terminal, situate at Port Newark, Newark, New Jersey. The entire terminal at the time of the accident hereinafter set forth was under the jurisdiction of the United States Army. It is completely fenced in and bounded on the northerly side by Port Street, and on the southerly side by Newark Bay. In addition to respondent, there were a number of other companies engaged in business within the terminal.

The only means of ingress and egress to the point where the petitioner was performing his duties for respondent was a gate approximately one-half mile away, at the northerly end of the terminal, immediately adjoining Port Street. This gate was continually guarded and admission could only be gained to the terminal by exhibiting a pass from the Provost Marshal's Department of the United States Army. Within the gate and leading from it, there was a road approximately 20 feet wide, leading to a point near where the petitioner was required to perform his work. This road was the one and only means by which persons employed by the respondent could reach their place of employment. The road was used not only by employees of the respondent, but in common with employees of the other employers within the Terminal. It was not open to the public, and admission could only be gained as above indicated, by the display of a pass. The road was intersected by the lines of several Railroad Companies. At the most northerly end, it was intersected by 3 sets of tracks belonging to the Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

On October 2, 1943, and for some time prior to that date, petitioner was in the employ of respondent, earning a weekly salary in excess of $30. He had started work at about 8 a.m. that morning. At about 6 p.m., he was informed that it would be necessary for him to work overtime that evening. There were no facilities within the Terminal where petitioner could get his supper, and he was told by his immediate superior to go out and get his supper, being permitted one hour for that purpose.

Petitioner entered the motor vehicle of a co-employee, Arthur Clark, and was driven from the point where he was employed to the gate of egress. He had his supper at a point outside of the Tide Water Terminal and returned in the same vehicle. The gate leading from the Terminal to Port Street was opened upon his return by the guard, upon he and his co-employee showing their respective admittance passes, as well as the vehicle pass. The vehicle proceeded along the road hereinabove referred to, and as it reached the intersecting tracks of the Railroad Company, a distance of approximately 70 feet from the gate, it was struck by a freight train of the Pennsylvania...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT