W. Jersey Trust Co. v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 November 1915 |
| Citation | 95 A. 753 |
| Parties | WEST JERSEY TRUST CO. v. PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Common Pleas, Mercer County.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by the West Jersey Trust Company, administrator of Amos B. Calloway, deceased, against the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, for compensation for the death of decedent. Compensation denied, and the administrator brings certiorari. Reversed and remanded.
Argued June term, 1915, before PARKER, MINTURN, and KALISCH, JJ.
S. Conrad Ott, of Camden, for prosecutor. Edward L. Katzenbach, of Trenton, for defendant.
PARKER, J. Deceased was killed while in the employment of defendant, by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The trial court found for the defendant on points of law. There is no substantial dispute as to the facts. Deceased was a brakeman, and was first employed by defendant in Philadelphia as an "extra" June 21, 1910, and as a "regular" May 26, 1911. Our Compensation Act went into force July 4, 1911. Deceased was killed on November 13, 1911, while at work in New Jersey on a train engaged in interstate commerce. He left a widow and two young children.
We think that all the grounds urged against a recovery of compensation have been decided adversely to respondent, except, perhaps, the last.
1. That as deceased was engaged in Interstate commerce, the federal act is exclusive. It is decided otherwise in Rounsaville v. Central R. R. Co., 94 Atl. 392.
2. That deceased was willfully negligent. But willful negligence is not a defense under section 2 of the act. See Taylor v. Seabrook, 94 Atl. 399.
3. That the act is inapplicable on account of the rule of lex loci contractus. Aliter in American Radiator Co. v. Rogge's Administrator, 86 N. J. Law, 436, 94 Atl. 85, affirmed 93 Atl. 1083.
4. That the claim is barred by a release by decedent in his lifetime, contained in his application for admission into the railroad relief association, and a further release by his widow, on receipt of the death benefit from said association.
The first seems to refer to damages only. The Compensation Act, as has more than once been pointed out, created a right of recovery contractual in its nature, and irrespective of negligence or other common-law liability on the part of the employer. American Radiator Co. v. Rogge, supra; Jacowicz v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 92 Atl. 946.
But apart from this, the statute of 1911, which was on the statute book at the time of the second employment (see Sexton v. Newark District Telegraph Co., 84 N. J. Law, 85, 96, 86 Atl. 451, et seq., affirmed 86 N. J. Law, 701, 91 Atl. 1070), created an irrebuttable presumption in the absence of an express contract, or notice, as therein provided, of the assent of the parties to a new contract, or quasi contract, whereby in case of injury or death there should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Floyd v. Vicksburg Cooperage Co.
... ... 314, 93 A. 1083; Davidheiser v. Hay, 87 N.J.L. 668, ... 94 A. 304; West Jersey Trust Co. v. Philadelphia Ry ... Co., 88 N.J.L. 102, 95 A. 753; Rounsaville v. Central ... Ry ... ...
-
Bubis v. Flockhart Foundry Co.
...required to bring the case under section 1 (Comp. St. Supp. 1924, § **236 —1) are complied with. See West Jersey Trust Co. v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Co., 88 N.J.Law, 102, 95 A. 753, and Taylor v. Seabrook, 87 N.J.Law, 407, 94 A. While it may be argued that the use of gasoline by th......