Niemi v. Thomas Iron Co.

26 A.2d 494, 20 N.J. Misc. 197, 1942 N.J. Misc. LEXIS 29
CourtNew Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau
DecidedApril 23, 1942
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 A.2d 494 (Niemi v. Thomas Iron Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Niemi v. Thomas Iron Co., 26 A.2d 494, 20 N.J. Misc. 197, 1942 N.J. Misc. LEXIS 29 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1942).

Opinion

The only controversial issue here presented for determination is whether or not the death of William Niemi on the 5th day of May, 1938, resulted from an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent company. íjí í}í íjí íjí í¡í jJj #

The evidence disclosed that William Niemi, age 61, married, had been employed by the respondent at its mine in Wharton, New Jersey, as a stope-machine operator for a number of years. This machine operated by compressed air and the manual manipulation of the employee, was used to drill the rock and ore and employed the same principal as a jack hammer or pavement breaker. However, instead of exerting a downward force, the pressure was directed in an upward direction. It appears that the decedent at all times during his employment had performed his work in an efficient [198]*198and satisfactory manner and in fact had been advanced in status to that of an A-l driller. Throughout his employment he appears to have been in good health and free from any illness or physical incapacity. On May 4th, 1938, at 10:00 p. if. he reported for -work as usual, on the night shift, at the iron mines of the respondent. The decedent proceeded with the performance of his customary work, which among other things, necessitated the use of the drill or stopermachine which weighed about 85 pounds, and which instrument was exhibited at the hearing in this cause. The testimony indicates that during the period from 10:00 p. m. until 2:00 A. m., when the decedent recessed his work for lunch, he bored approximately 18 feet in the stope or shaft where he was stationed. One Steve Lukatos, who was working on the same stope, testified that he and ISTiemi then descended a ladder to a lower level where both men ate their lunch, which consumed approximately 25 minutes to one-half hour. During this time the decedent appeared to have been conducting himself in his customary manner, and exhibited no outward signs of any unusual distress or illness. After finishing lunch, the decedent, preparatory to resuming his work, obtained two four-foot steel drills weighing about. 12 and 15 pounds each (according to the testimony of the foreman), which evidently were required for the work he was to perform, and with these drills in his hands he climbed the ladder, which was stationed at an incline of about 65 degrees, from the lower level to the stope where he was to work, in all, a distance of approximately 85 feet. After climbing the ladder as aforesaid, he was then required to walk or climb a distance of about 35 feet over a muck pile some six or seven feet high and which was inclined at a 35 degree angle, in order to reach the place where he was to resume work. It was indicated that it required some four or five minutes of climbing or walking by the decedent in order to reach this point from the lower level where he ate his lunch. The decedent also requested and obtained from Lukatos a starter drill and was seen by the latter to place same across his knees as the decedent took his station for work. His head lamp, when he reached the upper stope, was observed to be lighted.

[199]*199From the testimony as well as the demonstrations had in court, it appears that in order for the drilling operation to be commenced, it would be necessary for the employee to lift the 85 pound stope drill, after first inserting therein a steel or bit. Moreover, upon the temporary cessation or suspension of drilling, the steel bit descended partially into the interior of the machine. It was also indicated that the employee could, where the height of the shaft permitted, conduct the drilling operation while seated on the spare drills or steels which he employed as a make-shift seat. According to the testimony, it was customary for the employees upon returning to their station after lunch to start drilling.

Thus it appears that the work on the stope was resumed shortly after the lunch period ended, and some five minutes or more later, Lukatos had occasion to shut off his drilling machine. Upon doing so he observed that there was no light or drilling noise emanating from the side of the muck pile where Niemi was supposed to be working about 15 or 20 feet away. He thereupon crossed over to investigate and found Niemi prostrated on the steel bars which he had evidently employed as a seat in connection with the drilling work. The decedent’s face was distorted and he was sprawled out on his hack and right side with his head thrown back and his right arm extended. There was some small quantity of blood found on the rocks or pieces of ore nearby and a small wound was seen on the right side of his head. The drilling machine was found lying some four or five feet from his head and his carbide lamp was unlighted, with the bottom thereof separated or removed from the top portion.

While there does not appear to be any eye witnesses to the activities of the decedent during the period that immediately preceded his collapse and death, the absence of the starting drill, which according to the statement (P-1 in evidence) had been handed him by Lukatos earlier, coupled with the testimony that upon temporary cessation of the operation of said machine, the drill retreats or descends into the interior of the air gun, as well as the other facts and circumstances adduced in evidence, justifies the conclusion that Niemi had, for a short period of time at least, resumed his regular work after returning from lunch. From the testimony as to the [200]*200nature of his duties and my observation in court of the mechanism employed in connection therewith, I am of the opinion that the type of work in which the decedent was engaged was of a heavy and laborious character.

Shortly after its discovery, the decedent’s body was removed from the mine of the respondent and an autopsy was performed the same day by Dr. Hany Mutsehler, the Morris County medical examiner. His autopsy findings indicated that externally the decedent’s head exhibited abrasions in the right parietal region about 1% inches long and % of an inch wide. Dr. Mutsehler testified that in the course of the removal of the decedent’s brain he found evidence of a hemorrhage in that organ. A histological examination disclosed that the vessels of the brain were sclerotic and friable and that several small arteries therein were ruptured with an extravisation of blood into the central brain. The cause of death, according to the diagnosis made on autopsy, was a cerebral hemorrhage with cerebral arteriosclerosis as a contributing cause.

There also appeared and testified on behalf of the petitioner, Dr. George P. Olcott, Jr., an assistant medical examiner for Essex County, who has practiced medicine for upwards of thirty years and whose qualifications were conceded by the respondent. Dr. Olcott testified that in his opinion there was a causal relationship between the death of the employee and the physical activities and effort in which he was engaged immediately prior thereto, in the performance of his duties. He explained that the deceased employee, as disclosed by the autopsy, possessed a pre-existing arteriosclerosis of the blood vessels of the brain, which, over a considerable period of time, had resulted in a degenerative process that weakened and rendered brittle the walls of the said vessels. These," he stated, were rendered less able to withstand any unusual stress or burden'imposed upon them by any increased load on the blood circulatory system.

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

Related

Fox v. Plainfield
77 A.2d 281 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 A.2d 494, 20 N.J. Misc. 197, 1942 N.J. Misc. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niemi-v-thomas-iron-co-njlaborcomp-1942.