Stretkowicz v. William Spencer & Son Corp.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1936
• Docket Number: Claim No. 33049.
• Citation: 185 A. 371
• Parties: STRETKOWICZ v. WILLIAM SPENCER & SON CORPORATION.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

185 A. 371

STRETKOWICZ

v. WILLIAM SPENCER & SON CORPORATION.

Claim No. 33049.

New Jersey Department of Labor—Workmen's Compensation Bureau.

May 19, 1936.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Joseph Stretkowicz, claimant, opposed by William Spencer & Son Corporation, employer.

Petition dismissed.

Hoberman & Hoberman, of Jersey City, for petitioner.

Charles Landmesser, of Newark, for respondent.

JOHN C. WEGNER, Deputy Commissioner.

Respondent filed an answer setting forth that the New Jersey Compensation Court was without jurisdiction in this matter; and that the petitioner had already been compensated, pursuant to an award by the United States Employees' Compensation Commission.

The petitioner was called to the stand in his own behalf and testified that he was employed by the respondent, and that his duties consisted of loading and unloading boats, lighter, and barges, and that while engaged in wheeling a hand truck onto a boat, which was on the Hudson river along the Jersey City shore, on the day in question, and still on the gangplank leading to said boat, his speed was increased because of the downgrade of the gangplank, and he was caused to lose control of said hand truck, with the result that same fell from his hands forcing him into a stanchion on said boat, and that the hand truck fell against his left leg causing his injury. He further testified that he was treated for his injuries by Dr. Joseph F. Londrigan and also at the Medical Center Hospital of Jersey City. The only other evidence introduced on behalf of the petitioner was a clinical medical chart of the Medical Center Hospital, which showed that the petitioner had appeared there for treatment on several occasions.

The respondent introduced the testimony of John A. Willard, referee of the United States Employees' Compensation Commission, who testified that the said United States Employees' Compensation Commission had previously taken jurisdiction of this claim and had duly made an award in favor of the petitioner, which had been paid in full by the respondent. The testimony of John Mizourczyk and John Arno, coemployees with the petitioner, was also introduced, and they testified that while the petitioner was on the boat and engaged in wheeling the hand truck, another employee caused the petitioner to after his course, as a result of which he lost control of his vehicle and was forced into a stanchion on the boat. Dr. Joseph F. Londrigan also testified in behalf of the respondent to the effect that he treated the petitioner following the accident, for a bruised left leg, and that the extent of his disability was only of a temporary nature and did not extend beyond a period of two or three weeks.

It was stipulated by counsel that the Hudson river, upon which the boat was docked, was a navigable waterway.

Following this a motion was made in behalf of the respondent, urging a dismissal of the petition for the reason that the court was without jurisdiction in that the boat at the time of the aforesaid accident was docked in navigable water on the Hudson river along the shore of Jersey City, N. J., and that this claim was duly disposed of by the United States Employees' Compensation Commission, upon the theory that the petitioner was engaged in a maritime occupation.

It was urged on petitioner's behalf that opinion No. 5 of the United States Employees' Compensation Commission would govern in this case.

Opinion No. 5 states: "Employees engaged in maritime employment on a vessel are covered by the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act when leaving the vessel until they are entirely free from a gangplank extending from the vessel to the pier. Employees going aboard the vessel by means of a gangplank to engage in maritime employment are covered by the act only after they reach the vessel."

Opinion No. 5 was based in part upon the decision in the case of The Atna, 297 F. 673, 675, a decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Southern Division,...