TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Simpson v. New Jersey Stone & Tile Co.

WILLIAM SIMPSON v. NEW JERSEY STONE AND TILE COMPANY

Simpson v. N.J. Stone & Tile Co., 107 A. 36 (N.J. 1919)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1919
Citations
107 A. 3693 N.J.L. 2508 Gummere 2501919 N.J. LEXIS 152
Summary
. On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed: “This is a workman’s compensation case, and the main point raised relates to the finding by the trial court of total and permanent disability. “The original injury was a very bad fracture of the arm, which was compound, and became infected and discharged pus for a long period. Amputation was seriously considered, but the arm was saved. There was, however, a poor recovery, and the patient had several abscesses and at the time of the hearing was suffering, as the court found, with a severe neuritis caused, perhaps, by minor nerves being involved with the callous of the fracture, which, in the opinion of his physician, made him totally unfit for work, and there was evidence to support the finding that this condition would continue indefinitely unless the arm were amputated. “Prosecutor’s claim is that tlie award cannot exceed that authorized for the loss of an arm, but to this we do not agree. Cases are readily conceivable in which total and permanent disability exists without the loss of or injury to any specific: member. If tlie physical conditions in the present case as the court found them to exist at tlie time of the hearing created a total disability which was permanent unless the arm were amputated (and we think tlie evidence justified a finding of such a condition), the case of Feldman v. Braunsiein, 87 N. J. L. 20, controls. Petitioner is not required to undergo a serious operation, such as amputation of the arm at the shoulder. The court, therefore, properly dealt with the condition as actually existent. “Another point is made, that the order permits review within one year, whereas the act says review may be had after one year. This looks like a mere slip of the pen. The conclusions of the judge properly follow the statute, lmt tlie judgment does not. If necessary, the case may he remanded for correction of the judgment, which is merely an amendment to conform to the statute and the court’s conclusions. In other respects, the award is 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 tlie opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chief Justice,, Swayze, Trenciiard, Bergen, Kaliscii, Black, White, Heppexiiioimee, Gardner, JJ. 9.

For reversal — The Chancellor, Williams, Taylor, JJ. 3.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →
1920: 11929: 11931: 11933: 11934: 11935: 11936: 11937: 11938: 11939: 11940: 11941: 11942: 11945: 11951: 11952: 11956: 11989: 119202026peak 1920 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lipe v. Bradbury154 P.2d 1000 (N.M. 1945) · Concurrence
  2. Wilson Lumber Co. v. Wilson1920 OK 114, 188 P. 666
  3. Kalson v. Star Elec. Motor Co.83 A.2d 656 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
  4. Eastern S. S. Lines, Inc. v. Monahan26 F. Supp. 944 (D. Me. 1939)
  5. In re the Welfare of Hudson126 P.2d 765 (Wash. 1942)
  6. Lister v. JB Eurell Co.560 A.2d 89 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989)

Most recent

  1. Lister v. JB Eurell Co.560 A.2d 89 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989)
  2. Rodriguez v. Michael A. Scatuorchio, Inc.126 A.2d 378 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1956)
  3. Kolonkiewicz v. W. Ames & Co.92 A.2d 876 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1952)
  4. Kalson v. Star Elec. Motor Co.83 A.2d 656 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
  5. Lipe v. Bradbury154 P.2d 1000 (N.M. 1945) · Concurrence
  6. In re the Welfare of Hudson126 P.2d 765 (Wash. 1942)

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