Troth v. Millville Bottle Works

• Decision Date: 09 October 1914
• Citation: 91 A. 1031,86 N.J.L. 558
• Parties: TROTH v. MILLVILLE BOTTLE WORKS.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

91 A. 1031

86 N.J.L. 558

TROTH

v. MILLVILLE BOTTLE WORKS.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Oct. 9, 1914.

Certiorari to Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County.

Certiorari by Edgar L. Troth against the Millville Bottle Works, to review an order on defendant to pay petitioner a certain sum under the Employers' Liability Act. Judgment affirmed.

Argued June term, 1914, before TRENCHARD, BERGEN, and BLACK, JJ.

Louis H. Miller, of Millville, for prosecutor. Wescott & Wescott, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

BLACK, J. This writ of certiorari brings before the court for review an order made by the judge of the Cumberland court of common pleas on the 17th day of February, 1914, by which he ordered the defendant to pay to petitioner the sum of $5 per week for 100 weeks, or a total of $500, under the act known as the Employers' Liability Act (P. L. 1911, pp. 134, 763). The record discloses these facts: The petitioner became an apprentice to the defendant, as a mold maker, on the 25th day of September, 1909, prior to the passage of the act by the Legislature. He was injured by a blow in the eye on December 22, 1911. At the time of the injury the petitioner was 18 years of age. The prosecutor urges six points for setting aside the order of the court below, which may be grouped under three heads: First, the employer had no notice of the injury; second, the employer had given notice to the employé of the fact that it would not be bound by section 2 of the act; and, third, the act is unconstitutional.

As to the first, it is sufficient to say that there is evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court, and this court will not reverse on that ground. On the second point, the notice relied upon is as follows:

"Employés Take Notice.

"The provisions of section 2 of the New Jersey Employers' Liability Act, approved April 4, 1911 (Chapter 95, Laws of 1911), are not intended by this corporation to apply to its contract of hiring with vou.

"Millville Bottle Works."

This notice was posted around the works and given through the medium of the pay envelope. The difficulty with this notice is that it is not in compliance with the statute. Section 9 of the statute provides, that:

"In the employment of minors, section II shall be presumed to apply unless the notice be given by or to the parent or guardian of the minor."

This was not done.

On the third point—the constitutionality of the act—this court held, in the Sexton Case, 84 N. J. Law, 85, 86 Atl. 451, affirmed in the Court of Errors and Appeals in Sexton v. Newark District Telegraph Co., 86 N. J. Law,—, 91 Atl. 1070, that the act was constitutional, when applied to contracts made after the passage of the act. As to preexisting contracts, the act is also constitutional, as was said by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in construing an act of that state. This is not a compulsory law; therefore the...