Yoma Kenzi Yoshida v. Nichols
| Decision Date | 07 February 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 237.,237. |
| Citation | 170 A. 824 |
| Parties | YOMA KENZI YOSHIDA v. NICHOLS. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Yoma Kenzi Yoshida, claimant for injuries, opposed by C. W. Nichols, employer. To review a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas affirming an order of the Compensation Bureau which dismissed his petition, claimant brings certiorari.
Affirmed.
Argued October term, 1933, before CASE, BODINE, and DONGES, JJ.
David Roskein, of Newark, for petitioner.
Colie & Colie, of Newark (Frederic R. Colie, of Newark, of counsel), for respondent.
Yoma Kenzi Yoshida, an employee of C. W. Nichols, was assaulted and injured by Hikisuki Lakamoto, a fellow employee. Yoshida filed a petition for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, P. L. 1911, p. 136, as amended, Comp. St Supp. § **236—1 et seq. The Workmen's Compensation Bureau found that the injuries were not caused by an accident arising out of the employment and dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Essex common pleas affirmed that order, and the judgment in the pleas is now before us on writ of certiorari.
Petitioner seeks to present, as the issue, the question, novel in this state, whether an employee injured by a fellow employee in a fight in which the first mentioned is not the aggressor, the fight growing out of an altercation concerning the manner of doing the work of the respective employments, may recover compensation as for an accident arising out of his employment. We think that the facts do not present that issue.
Yoshida was, technically, the butler, and Lakamoto, the houseman, and some of their duties dovetailed. There was a duty upon Yoshida of decorating certain rooms, and upon Lakamoto of decorating certain other rooms, with flowers procurable from the defendant's greenhouse at the hands of the gardner. Yoshida made a request for flowers. Later the gardner left flowers at the house and Yoshida, understanding that they were Intended for him, presently undertook to do his decorating. Missing some of the flowers, Yoshida searched the rooms for which Lakamoto was responsible and recognized the decorations there as "his" flowers; though the flowers were all to come from the same source and how he made the identification does not appear. At any rate, he called Lakamoto to task, and the latter, as Yoshida testified, was "mad" at him. That was on September 61 h. The record is silent as to what the two did, either generally or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Snuffy's Steak House
...91 N.J.L. 528, 103 A. 184, L.R.A.1918E, 494 (E. & A.1917); or where the assault was actuated by personal causes, Yoshida v. Nichols, 12 N.J.Misc. 197, 170 A. 824 (Sup.Ct.1934); Giles v. W. E. Beverage Co., 133 N.J.L. 137, 43 A.2d 286 (Sup.Ct.1945), affirmed 134 N.J.L. 234, 46 A.2d 728 (E. &......
-
Cierpial v. Ford Motor Co.
...91 N.J.L. 528, 103 A. 184, L.R.A.1918E, 494 (E. & A. 1917); or where the assault was actuated by personal causes, Yoshida v. Nichols, 170 A. 824, 12 N.J.Misc. 197 (Sup.Ct.1934); Giles v. W. E. Beverage Co., 133 N.J.L. 137, 43 A.2d 286 (Sup.Ct.1945), affirmed 134 N.J.L. 234, 46 A.2d 728 (E. ......
-
Mayes v. Walter Kidde Constructors, Inc.
...88 N.J.L. 161, 95 A. 1007, L.R.A.1916C, 1203), or where the assault is motivated from purely personal causes (Yoshida v. Nichols, 170 A. 824, 12 N.J. Misc. 197) or where the injured employee is the aggressor (Merkel v. T. A. Gillespie Company, 162 A. 250, 10 N.J.Misc. 1081), compensation is......
-
Adolph v. Breen Iron Works
...v. Standard Silk Dyeing Company, 163 A. 439, 10 N.J.Misc. 1290. This case is to be distinguished from the case of Yoshida v. Nichols, 170 A. 824, 12 N.J.Misc. 197, where the assault arose out of ill-feeling between the fellow employees, for reasons unrelated with the It is not alone suffici......