Case ID: nj-misc_4/html/0774-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "W. E. Stubbs, \n      Deputy Commissioner of Compensation.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

New Jersey Department of Labor, Workmen’s Compensation Bureau.
    MICHAEL BOGDOLL, PETITIONER, v. J. P. WHITE COMPANY, RESPONDENT.
    Death Resulting From Fail—Determination of Amount of Compensation Due the Several Dependents.
    For the petitioner, Ilen-ry M. Hartmann.
    
    For the respondent, Raymond E. Taylor.
    
    SUMMARY OR FACTS.
    That on August 22d, 1925, the decedent, Alexander Bog-doll, while engaged in attending the flow of concrete at the top of a narrow concrete shute elevated eighty-five feet from the ground, and while changing the directions of the shute, the same broke and the decedent fell to the ground and was instantly killed.
    The petitioner is entitled to compensation, the decedent having left him surviving the following members of his family:
    
      Date of Birth
    
    Michael Bogdoll.....Father.......June 9, 1881
    Marcella Bogdoll ....Mother ......Oct. 21st, ,1882
    Edward Bogdoll.....Brother......March 15th, 1908
    Henry Bogdoll......Brother......May 3d, 1909
    Bernard Bogdoll ....Brother......June 8th, 1911
    Marcella Bogdoll ... .Sister .......March 8th, 1916
    Eleanor Bogdoll.....Sister .......March 3d, 1919
    A review of the facts set forth above makes plain that, in so far as Edward and Henry are concerned, no claim for compensation can he entertained. .The wages earned by these two must, however, be considered in arriving at the cost of maintenance of those of the family who may be classified as partial dependents in this case.
    The status of the father, mother, brother and sisters under sixteen is definitely established in the case of Oonners v. Public Service Electric Go., 97 Atl. Rep. 792, in which case the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, who held that the father, as well as the other members of the family, must be considered a dependent, even though he was earning $26.40 a week.
    The soundness of this ruling is apparent when the wages of the father and other wage earners are all placed in a common fund, so that the father, as well as the other members of the family, feels the loss of the withdrawal of the contribution of the deceased.
    In the present case the total income of the family was $102. This indicates $12.75 as the cost of maintenance of each of the eight members. Five of these must be classified as partial dependents whose support cost $63.75. This amount apportioned among the wage earners, according to their several wages, shows that the deceased contributed weekly toward the support of his father, mother, Bernard, Marcella and Eleanor, the sum of $25.62, which sum must be used as the basis of the calculations determining the weekly compensation rates.
    DETERMINATION.
    I do find and determine, therefore, that Alexander Bogdoll was, on August 22d, 1925, in the employ of the respondent, J, P. White Company; that his wages were $41.25 per week; that on said date he met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment which resulted in his death on said date; that the employer had due knowledge of the injury, which was not intentionally self-inflicted nor due to intoxication; that he left surviving his father, mother, brother Bernard, sister Marcella and sister Eleanor, all of whom were partially depending upon him for support.
   ORDER.-

It is, therefore, on this 20th day of May, 1926, ordered that judgment final he entered in favor of the petitioner, and that the respondent pay, or cause to be paid, to the petitioner, compensation as follows:

$14.09. per week for............. 93-5/7 weeks

$12.81 per week for next ensuing.. 206-2/7 weeks $10.25 per week for next ensuing.. 41-4/7 weeks

$8.97 per week for next ensuing.. 155-5/7 weeks

Covering a total period of.... 497-2/7 weeks

This compensation shall begin as of August 22d, 1925, the first weekly payment due August 29th, 1925. All the compensation which has become due since August 29th shall be paid in one sum.

The respondent shall also pay to the petitioner $150 on account of burial expenses, and also $300 as counsel fee to the petitioner’s attorney.

W. E. Stubbs,

Deputy Commissioner of Compensation.