Mayor of Jersey City v. Hudson County Natonal Bank

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Mayor of Jersey City v. Hudson County Natonal Bank

186 A. 33, 116 N.J.L. 593, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 463

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJuly 15, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 186 A. 33 (Mayor of Jersey City v. Hudson County Natonal Bank) 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

Mayor of Jersey City v. Hudson County Natonal Bank, 186 A. 33, 116 N.J.L. 593, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 463 (N.J. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Heher, J.

Plaintiff sued on a book account for medical and hospital services furnished one of defendant’s employes, who, apparently, suffered injury by an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. Concededly, there was no undertaking by the defendant employer to pay the value of the service thus rendered; and the theory advanced is that liability therefor is created by paragraph 14 of section II of the Workmen’s Compensation act of 1911, as amended by chapter 149 of the laws of 1928. Pamph. L. 1911, p. 134; Pamph. L. 1928, p. 300.

There was evidence tending to show that the employer, through its representative, early had knowledge of the injury and of the need of hospitalization; but it is undisputed that such treatment was not authorized by it. Where the employer does not undertake to furnish the requisite hospital service, jurisdiction to compel him to assume the payment of the expense thus incurred is vested by the statute in the compensation bureau. The statute defines the rights and duties of the employer and employe inter sej and it does not vest in a third party who provides surgical, medical or hospital service, a right of action against the employer for the value thereof. Here there was no contractual undertaking by the employer to pay for this service, and therefore the action is not maintainable. Plaintiff was not a party to the contract springing from the mutual assent of the employer and employe to the terms laid down in the statute. On the evidence adduced, the motion for a nonsuit should have been granted.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion; costs to abide the event.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Heher, J.

Plaintiff sued on a book account for medical and hospital services furnished one of defendant’s employes, who, apparently, suffered injury by an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. Concededly, there was no undertaking by the defendant employer to pay the value of the service thus rendered; and the theory advanced is that liability therefor is created by paragraph 14 of section II of the Workmen’s Compensation act of 1911, as amended by chapter 149 of the laws of 1928. Pamph. L. 1911, p. 134; Pamph. L. 1928, p. 300.

There was evidence tending to show that the employer, through its representative, early had knowledge of the injury and of the need of hospitalization; but it is undisputed that such treatment was not authorized by it. Where the employer does not undertake to furnish the requisite hospital service, jurisdiction to compel him to assume the payment of the expense thus incurred is vested by the statute in the compensation bureau. The statute defines the rights and duties of the employer and employe inter sej and it does not vest in a third party who provides surgical, medical or hospital service, a right of action against the employer for the value thereof. Here there was no contractual undertaking by the employer to pay for this service, and therefore the action is not maintainable. Plaintiff was not a party to the contract springing from the mutual assent of the employer and employe to the terms laid down in the statute. On the evidence adduced, the motion for a nonsuit should have been granted.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion; costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A. 33, 116 N.J.L. 593, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayor-of-jersey-city-v-hudson-county-natonal-bank-nj-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack