Taylor v. Seabrook

• Decision Date: 04 June 1915
• Citation: 87 N.J.L. 407,94 A. 399
• Parties: TAYLOR et al. v. SEABROOK.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

94 A. 399

87 N.J.L. 407

TAYLOR et al.

v. SEABROOK.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 4, 1915.

Certiorari to Court of Common Pleas, Monmouth County.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Marcus B. Taylor and others, executors of Thomas B. Stout, against Lucy Seabrook, administratrix of Elias Seabrook. Judgment of the court of common pleas awarding compensation, and defendant brings certiorari. Reversed in part, and affirmed in part.

Argued February term, 1915, before SWAYZE, PARKER, and KALISCH, JJ.

J. Clarence Conover, of Freehold, for prosecutors. Michael J. Tansey, of Newark, for defendant.

PARKER, J. This is a workmen's compensation case, in which death occurred as the result of the accident. The deceased was working for defendant as a laborer in digging out a cellar, in which there were some masonry piers, and during the course of his work one of the piers fell over on him, with fatal results. It is not denied that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment.

The first ground urged for a reversal is that the accident was due to the willful negligence of the deceased. We think counsel misapprehends the provisions of the act of 1911, so far as they relate to willful negligence. All that that act says on this subject is contained in the portion of the act designated as section 1, which may be called, for convenience, the employer's liability section of the statute. In this part of the act the liability is made to depend, not upon any implied contract for compensation, but upon the negligence of the employer, either at common law or resulting from the requirements of the act itself. When we come to section 2 we find that the provision of willful negligence is entirely omitted, and that the only exemption is when the injury or death is intentionally self-inflicted, or when intoxication is the natural and proximate cause of injury. P. L. 1911, p. 136, § 2, par. 7. There is no claim in this case that the injury was self-inflicted or that it was due to intoxication.

The next point is that the widow and daughter, for whose benefit the petition was filed, are not dependents, in the sense intended by the act. This point we deem to be without substance. It is true that the deceased did not work steadily; that he was inclined to dissipation; that he did not live at home all of the time; and that his wife's position was not very satisfactory. But there was evidence that when he did work he contributed a substantial part of his earnings towards the...