Terlingo v. Belzparr, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 October 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 18.,18. |
| Parties | TERLINGO v. BELZPARR, Inc. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Circuit Court, Camden County.
Action by Ponziano Terlingo, as administrator of the estate of Louis Terlingo, deceased, and as administrator ad prosequendum and in his own behalf, against Belz-Parr, Inc. Prom an adverse Judgment, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Joseph Beck Tyler, of Camden, for appellant.
Ralph W. Wescott, of Camden, for appellee.
The plaintiff, as general administrator of his minor son, recovered a verdict for $1,000, and as administrator ad pros, a verdict for $5,000.
The deceased was under 16 years of age at the time of his death. He was employed in a stoneyard, without age and schooling certificate. His employment was not in violation of any provision of the Factory Act (3 Comp. St. 1910, p. 3023 et seq., § 16 et seq.; 1 Comp. St. Supp. 1924, p. 1671 et seq., § 107—16 et seq.). At the time of his injury he was taking some empty bags from a bin. The walls of the bin fell upon him. For the purpose of this case, negligence of the employer is admitted.
The trial judge charged the jury that, if the deceased was under 16 years of age at the time of his injury and death, the actions would lie; otherwise, not. The propriety of this ruling is challenged in a number of assignments of error.
The amendment to section 9 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (P. L. 1911, p. 136), by P. L. 1924, p. 359, so far as pertinent, is as follows:
By virtue of the Act of March 15, 1855 (2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 2260, § 4), and the Act of March 3, 1848 (Death Act, 2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 1907, § 7), in an appropriate case there may be a recovery for the loss that accrued to the estate of a deceased person between injury and death, and also for the pecuniary injury to the next of kin by reason of the death. Soden v. Trenton & Mercer County Traction Corp., 101 N. J. Law, 393, 127 A. 558. This principle of law the trial judge applied to the facts in this case.
The workmen's compensation statute is a remedial law, and is to be liberally and broadly construed. Jersey City v. Borst, 90 N. J. Law, 454, 101 A. 1033; Schmid v. Stanton Forging Co., 104 N. J....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Variety Farms, Inc. v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.
...the clear legislative purpose is to give the minor certain additional rights and to deprive him of none, Terlingo v. Belz-Parr, Inc., 106 N.J.L. 221, 223, 147 A. 480 (E. & A.1929); although, of course, the minor cannot have both his statutory and his common law remedies. See Watson v. Stagg......
-
Thompson v. Family Godfather, Inc.
... ... In short, the clear legislative purpose is to give the minor certain additional rights and to deprive him of none. Terlingo v. Belz-Parr, Inc., 106 N.J.L. 221, 223 [147 A. 480] (E. & A. 1929). [at 17-18, 410 A.2d 696] ... In order to determine legislative ... ...
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Laval, 129/635.
...A. 121; Pushcart, Adm'r, v. New York Shipbuilding Co., 86 N.J.L. 444, 92 A. 81; Terlingo v. Belz-Parr, Inc., Err. & App, 106 N.J.L. 221, 147 A. 480; Alston v. Hankey, 108 N.J.L. 226, 156 A. The right of action created under the Death Act, supra, and that created under the Executors and Admi......
-
Chickachop v. Manpower, Inc.
...A plaintiff minor may choose to bring an action for workmen's compensation or for common law tort. Terlingo v. Belz-Parr, Inc., 106 N.J.L. 221, 147 A. 480 (E. & A. 1929); Goetaski v. California Packing Corp., 19 N.J.Super. 460, 88 A.2d 685 (Law Div.1952); Watson v. Stagg, 108 N.J.L. 444, 15......