Winter v. Atkinson-Frizelle Co.

• Decision Date: 15 November 1915
• Docket Number: No. 74.,74.
• Citation: 96 A. 360,88 N.J.Law 401
• Parties: WINTER v. ATKINSON-FRIZELLE CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

96 A. 360

88 N.J.Law 401

WINTER

v. ATKINSON-FRIZELLE CO.

No. 74.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 15, 1915.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Winifred Winter, to obtain compensation for the death of a workman, opposed by the Atkinson-Frizelle Company, the employer. A judgment of the common pleas, awarding compensation, was affirmed by the Supreme Court, and the employer appeals. Affirmed.

The judgment of the pleas was affirmed by the Supreme Court in which the following opinion was filed:

"Per Curiam. The trial court found that the deceased came to his death as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The only question is whether this finding is justified by the evidence, and we think that it was. There were two accidents or occurrences; one in October when deceased fell into an excavation and sustained bruises of the chest and ribs, the second, in November, when he fell dead while doing some heavy lifting. Both were in the course of regular employment. After the first accident he was examined by the employer's doctor, who found heart irregularity and aneurism of the aorta. The trial judge was inclined to the view that the accident in October produced a condition that brought on decedent's death under the strain of November, though he held that it could reasonably be found that the strain of November in his diseased condition was the cause of death. The latter theory is sufficient for our purposes, and brings the case directly in line with Voorhees v. Smith Schoonmaker Co., 86 N. J. Law, 500, 92 Atl. 280. We, therefore, find it unnecessary to examine into the other alternative suggested by the trial judge, viz., that the October accident produced a condition which caused him to succumb under the after strain.

"The judgment will be affirmed."

M. Casewell Heine, of Newark, for appellant. Ziegener & Lane, of Jersey City, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. Judge Tennant in the pleas, after an exhaustive review of the English cases applicable to the proceeding before him regarded as one in which the decedent's death resulted solely from a strain incurred in the course of his employment on November 18th, found from the testimony that such was the fact. This is the only conclusion that can be drawn from his opinion as a whole, although the finding is not stated as such in so many words.

The Supreme Court's reference to this state of...