Carr v. Federal Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Carr v. Federal Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.

50 A.2d 657, 135 N.J.L. 148, 1947 N.J. LEXIS 185

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJanuary 17, 1947

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 A.2d 657 (Carr v. Federal Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carr v. Federal Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., 50 A.2d 657, 135 N.J.L. 148, 1947 N.J. LEXIS 185 (N.J. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court on certiorari reversing a determination of the Essex County Court of Common Pleas which, in turn, had affirmed a finding of the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau awarding compensation for injuries to the appellant, an employee of the respondent.

The question in the case is whether or not the appellant’s admitted 'disability was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his emplojnnent. The Supreme Court .found as a fact that the appellant had not sustained the burden of proving that a compensable accident had occurred. This court, on appeal will not weigh the evidence, Berman, v. Levenstein, 121 N. J. L. 139; Jones v. Court of Common Pleas, 129 Id. 58. Appellant contends that there was no dispute in fact presented to the Supreme Court and that the result reached by that court had no support in the evidence. A reading of the records reveals that this contention is without merit. A factual question was presented as to the hap *149 pening of the accident by the evidence as to the finding of the unconscious form of the appellant some distance from the ladder from which he said he fell, no one having seen the alleged accident occur, and in the medical evidence as to the nature of the disability resulting from brain injury, the hospital records Indicating that appellant suffered from a cerebral hemorrhage.

We conclude that a factual issue was presented and determined in the Supreme Court such as is not subject to review in this court on appeal. The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Parker, Donges, Heher, Colie, Wachenfeld, Eastwood, Wells, Rafferty, Freund, McLean, JJ. 11.

For reversal — McGeelan, J. .1.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court on certiorari reversing a determination of the Essex County Court of Common Pleas which, in turn, had affirmed a finding of the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau awarding compensation for injuries to the appellant, an employee of the respondent.

The question in the case is whether or not the appellant’s admitted 'disability was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his emplojnnent. The Supreme Court .found as a fact that the appellant had not sustained the burden of proving that a compensable accident had occurred. This court, on appeal will not weigh the evidence, Berman, v. Levenstein, 121 N. J. L. 139; Jones v. Court of Common Pleas, 129 Id. 58. Appellant contends that there was no dispute in fact presented to the Supreme Court and that the result reached by that court had no support in the evidence. A reading of the records reveals that this contention is without merit. A factual question was presented as to the hap *149 pening of the accident by the evidence as to the finding of the unconscious form of the appellant some distance from the ladder from which he said he fell, no one having seen the alleged accident occur, and in the medical evidence as to the nature of the disability resulting from brain injury, the hospital records Indicating that appellant suffered from a cerebral hemorrhage.

We conclude that a factual issue was presented and determined in the Supreme Court such as is not subject to review in this court on appeal. The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Parker, Donges, Heher, Colie, Wachenfeld, Eastwood, Wells, Rafferty, Freund, McLean, JJ. 11.

For reversal — McGeelan, J. .1.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.2d 657, 135 N.J.L. 148, 1947 N.J. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-federal-shipbuilding-drydock-co-nj-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack