Wood v. Market-Arlington Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 February 1937 |
| Citation | 190 A. 785 |
| Parties | WOOD v. MARKET-ARLINGTON CO., Inc., et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by James O. Wood, petitioner, opposed by the Market-Arlington Company, Incorporated, and others. On finding of facts and determination and rule for judgment.
Finding in accordance with opinion.
Charles Becker, of Newark, for petitioner.
Francis X. Kenneally, of Newark, for respondents.
JOHN J. STAHL, Deputy Commissioner.
It appears from the undisputed evidence that James O. Wood, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, met with an accident on January 7, 1936, at the Branford & Arlington Garage, which was owned and operated by the Market-Arlington Company, Incorporated. The accident occurred while he was changing a tire on the automobile of a customer who had just made purchase of gasoline, and upon using a lift jack which was faulty and defective, the ratchet slipped causing the handle to strike petitioner forcibly against his chest, throwing him backward and injuring his head and left leg. Petitioner was taken by ambulance to St. Barnabas Hospital, where he was confined as a patient for three weeks, and thereafter was treated as an out-patient at the clinic until July, 1936.
The point of controversy is as to petitioner's status at the time of the accident; that is, whether he was in the employ of the Alarket-Arlington Company, Incorporated, or Thomas Coleman.
The facts developed in the evidence along this line indicate that during the month of December, 1935, finding it impracticable to do repair work itself and maintain its own repair department, the Market-Arlington Company, Incorporated, entered into a contract with one Thomas Coleman, an expert auto mechanic, by the terms of which Coleman was to operate this department, furnishing his own equipment, parts, and labor on 40 per cent.—60 per cent. basis. There seems to be no question but that Coleman conducted the same as his own independent business, having expended large sums of money in furnishing the repair department with necessary tools and equipment, and at times employing mechanics to assist him. It appears that during the latter part of December, 1935, petitioner was hired in a dual capacity, that is, as an extra car washer and garageman's helper by the Market-Arlington Company, Incorporated, and as a mechanic's helper by Coleman. He received wages of $2 per day when he worked as extra man for the former, and wages based on a percentage of each job when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blessing v. T. Shriver & Co.
...against one bars the employee from maintaining a common law tort action against either for the same injury. Wood v. Market-Arlington Co., Inc., 15 N.J.Misc. 272, 274, 190 A. 785, 786 (Dept.Labor 1937); Scott v. Public Service Interstate Transp. Co., 6 N.J.Super. 226, 229, 70 A.2d 882 (App.D......
-
Scott v. Public Service Interstate Transp. Co.
...controlling within our State. Cf. Curran v. Newark Gear Cutting Machine Co., 37 N.J.L.J. 21, 22 (C.P.1913); Wood v. Market-Arlington Co., 190 A. 785, 15 N.J.Misc. 272 (W.C.B.1937). In State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission, 26 Cal.2d 278, 158 [70 A.2d 884] P.2d ......
-
Niebuhr v. Sassadeck, 410.
...pointed out, the trial judge found that plaintiff obtained an offer of settlement of $2,000, which offer was communicated to and accepted 190 A. 785 by the defendant, and that within a day or two thereafter he discharged the plaintiff without justifiable or legal cause. If thereafter the de......