Case ID: njl_135/html/0148-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WALTER CARR, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. FEDERAL SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK CO., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
    Argued October 15, 1946
    Decided January 17, 1947.
    For the appellant, Joseph Moritz, Aaron Gordon and Jacob S. Spiro.
    
    For the respondent, Stryker, Tams & Horner, William L. Dill, Jr., and Waller F. Waldau.
    
   Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court on certiorari reversing a determination of the Essex County Court of Common Pleas which, in turn, had affirmed a finding of the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau awarding compensation for injuries to the appellant, an employee of the respondent.

The question in the case is whether or not the appellant’s admitted 'disability was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his emplojnnent. The Supreme Court .found as a fact that the appellant had not sustained the burden of proving that a compensable accident had occurred. This court, on appeal will not weigh the evidence, Berman, v. Levenstein, 121 N. J. L. 139; Jones v. Court of Common Pleas, 129 Id. 58. Appellant contends that there was no dispute in fact presented to the Supreme Court and that the result reached by that court had no support in the evidence. A reading of the records reveals that this contention is without merit. A factual question was presented as to the happening of the accident by the evidence as to the finding of the unconscious form of the appellant some distance from the ladder from which he said he fell, no one having seen the alleged accident occur, and in the medical evidence as to the nature of the disability resulting from brain injury, the hospital records Indicating that appellant suffered from a cerebral hemorrhage.

We conclude that a factual issue was presented and determined in the Supreme Court such as is not subject to review in this court on appeal. The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Parker, Donges, Heher, Colie, Wachenfeld, Eastwood, Wells, Rafferty, Freund, McLean, JJ. 11.

For reversal — McGeelan, J. .1.