TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

De Fazio v. Goldschmidt Detinning Co.

THE ESTATE OF CARMINE DE FAZIO v. THE GOLDSCHMIDT DETINNING COMPANY

De Fazio v. Goldschmidt Detinning Co., 87 N.J.L. 317 (1915)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 13, 1915
Citations
87 N.J.L. 3171915 N.J. LEXIS 217
Summary
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed: “This writ was allowed to review an order by Middlesex Pleas, awarding compensation under Employers’ Liability act. De Eazio was in the service of the defendant. He was found dead lying under a train of cars, with a hole, about six inches in diameter, in his abdomen. There is no proof of the accident. Two points are raised, first, that the circumstances do not show that it was an accident; second, that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. As to the first, we think that a prima facie case of accident was shown. There is nothing from which self-destruction can be inferred, and the size of the wound indicates that the injury was caused by some unusual happening. As to the second point, it seems that the deceased had gone to his foreman in search of material and while on this trip was injured. We have no doubt that under these conditions he was in the course of his employment. There is no proof that he was on the cars, or doing anything that increased the hazard of his work. Affirmed.”

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the per curiam ppinion filed in the Supreme Court.

*318 For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chibe Justice, Garrison, Trenohard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Vredenburgi-i, White, Terhune, ITeppeni-ieimer, JJ. 12.

For reversal—None.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1952: 11953: 119522026peak 1952 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. MacKo v. Herbert Hinchman & Son94 A.2d 690 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1953)
  2. Furda v. Scammell China Co.86 A.2d 39 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1952)

Most recent

  1. MacKo v. Herbert Hinchman & Son94 A.2d 690 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1953)
  2. Furda v. Scammell China Co.86 A.2d 39 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1952)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list