Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bujalski v. Flockhart Foundry Co.

Decided: November 7, 1951.

HELEN BUJALSKI, AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR ALEX KULINKA, PETITIONER-APPELLEE,
v.
FLOCKHART FOUNDRY COMPANY, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT



McGeehan, Jayne and Wm. J. Brennan, Jr.

Per Curiam

The judgment under appeal is affirmed on the findings of fact and conclusions and for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Francis reported sub nom. Kulinka v. Flockhart Foundry Co. , 9 N.J. Super. 495 (Cty. Ct. 1950), except in two particulars. The statement that "It is conceivable that his foot may have struck the edge of the closed portion of the side of the cab, when he attempted to swing his leg over the rail" is unnecessary. Under the facts found by the County Court, the petitioner proved an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment without any need, under the circumstances, to prove that the loss of balance which brought about his fall from his hazardous perch was caused by any particular movement. Cf. Jochim v. Montrose Chemical Co. , 3 N.J. 5 (1949); Reynolds v. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commrs. , 130 N.J.L. 437 (Sup. Ct. 1943), affirmed 131 N.J.L. 327 (E. & A. 1944). In the conclusion that "the respondent has not excluded the particular hazards of Kulinka's employment task as a possible cause or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.