Buonfiglio v. R. Neumann & Co.

107 A. 285, 93 N.J.L. 174, 1919 N.J. LEXIS 130
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 20, 1919·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Swayze, J.

This action is brought by a father for pecuniary loss to him caused by an injury to -his minor son, a lad sixteen years of age. The son was in the employ of the defendant, to whose negligence the injury is attributed.

[175] There was no express statement in writing or written notice that the provisions of section 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation act were not intended to apply, and, pursuant to paragraph 8, the parties are presumed to have accepted the provision of section 2, and to have agreed to he hound thereby. That the father was one of the parties so bound in the present case is shown by the fact that he received his son’s wages. The question raised is whether the Workmen’s Compensation act furnishes the sole rule of compensation or whether the father has the same right of action he would have had at common law. The question turns on the provisions of the statute. Paragraph 8 enacts that the “agreement shall ho a surrender by the parties thereto of their rights to any other method, form or amount of compensation or determination thereof than as provided in section 2 of this act.” This express language settles the question adversely to the plaintiff. It distinguishes the ease from King v. Vicoloid Company, 106 N. E. Rep. 988. The right of the legislature to prescribe these implied, or, we should rather say, statutory contracts, has been settled. American, Radiator Co. v. Rogge, 86 N. J. L. 436; affirmed, 87 Id. 314; Hetzel, Jr., v. Wasson Piston Ring Co., 89 Id. 201; Young v. Sterling Leather Works, 91 Id. 289.

When the plaintiff, in the present case, permitted liis son to work for the defendant without giving the notice which he might have given, he accepted the provisions of the statute and thereby surrendered his right to any other method or form of compensation.

The judgment must he reversed, to the end that there may he a venire de novo.

For affirmance — Hone.

For reversal — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Sivayze, Tren ciiaed, Parker, Bergen, Kalisch, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Gardner, JJ. 11.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Buonfiglio v. R. Neumann & Co., 107 A. 285, 93 N.J.L. 174, 1919 N.J. LEXIS 130 (N.J. 1919).

107 A. 285 (Buonfiglio v. R. Neumann & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ferriter v. Daniel O'Connell's Sons, Inc.
413 N.E.2d 690 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1980)
Gillespie v. Northridge Hospital Foundation
20 Cal. App. 3d 867 (California Court of Appeal, 1971)
Winn-Lovett Tampa v. Murphree
73 So. 2d 287 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1954)
Danek v. Hommer
87 A.2d 5 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1952)
Danek v. Hommer
82 A.2d 659 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1951)
Wilson v. Newark Smelting & Refining Co.
56 A.2d 619 (Essex County Court, 1945)
Houston Pipe Line Co. v. Beasley
49 S.W.2d 950 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Sharp v. Producers Produce Co.
47 S.W.2d 242 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1932)
Roxana Petroleum Co. v. Cope
1928 OK 442 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Scruggs
277 S.W. 768 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
198 N.W. 294 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1924)
Silurian Oil Co. v. White
252 S.W. 569 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Wall v. Studebaker Corp.
189 N.W. 58 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)
Hilsinger v. Zimmerman Steel Co.
193 Iowa 708 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1922)