White v. Boulia-Gorrell Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 24 June 1932
• Citation: White v. Boulia-Gorrell Lumber Co., 85 N.H. 543, 161 A. 801 (N.H. 1932)
• Parties: WHITE v. BOULIA-GORRELL LUMBER CO.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

161 A. 801

WHITE

v. BOULIA-GORRELL LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Merrimack.

June 24, 1932.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Merrimack County; Burque, J.

Proceeding by Edward W. White, employee, against the Boulia-Gorrell Lumber Company, employer, for assessment of workmen's compensation. Defendant's motion to dismiss the petition was denied, and defendant brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

Petition, under P. L., c. 178, § 25, for the assessment of workmen's compensation.

The plaintiff was a helper on a motortruck, and part of his work brought him near power-driven machinery where five or more laborers were employed. He assisted in hauling freight from the railroad to the defendant's mill, and was injured while loading his truck at the station.

The defendant's motion to dismiss the petition was denied subject to exception.

Further facts are stated in the opinion.

Peter J. King and Murchie, Murchie & Blandin, all of Concord (Alexander Murchie, of Concord, orally), for plaintiff.

Robert W. Upton and Lawrence I. Duncan, both of Concord (Duncan, orally), for defendant.

MARBLE, J.

The plaintiff was a minor at the time of the accident. A release of all demands against the defendant was executed 'by the plaintiff's father, who signed the release as the plaintiff's "next friend." This instrument is not a bar to the action. Roberts v. Hillsborough Mills, 85 N. H. ——, 161 A. 29.

There is no claim that the accident did not arise "out of and in the course of" the plaintiff's employment. P. L., c. 178, § 2. Since that employment exposed the plaintiff at times "to the dangers incident to proximity to machinery" he was an employee under class II of the statute, and is "entitled to the benefit of such classification," even though his injury was not caused by a dangerous machine. Morin v. Nashua Mfg. Company, 78 N. H. 567, 568, 103 A. 312. See, also, Casey v. Frank Jones Brewing Company, 79 N. H. 42, 43, 104 A. 454; Boody v. K. & C. Mfg. Company, 77 N. H. 208, 90 A. 859, L. R. A. 1916A, 10, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1280.

It is suggested, however, that the statute is inapplicable because the accident did not occur on the defendant's premises. Assuming the legislative purpose to have been correctly interpreted in the cases cited, no intent can reasonably be inferred to restrict the application of the statute to accidents happening within the employer's plant.

The initial inquiry relates to classification, and the words, "work in any shop, mill, factory," etc., are merely descriptive of class H. P. L., c. 178, § 1, cl. II; Regnier v. Rand, 79 N....