From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Damato v. DeLucia

Court of Errors and Appeals
Apr 27, 1933
110 N.J.L. 380 (N.J. 1933)

Summary

In Damato v. DeLucia, 110 N.J.L. 380 (E. A. 1933), the reverse situation was presented, and a worker who had received an award of damages in a civil action was held barred from pursuing a statutory remedy.

Summary of this case from Pappano v. Shop Rite of Pennington, Inc.

Opinion

Argued February 9, 1933 —

Decided April 27, 1933.

An infant has a common law remedy for injuries received by reason of the negligence of his master, and also a remedy under the statute. Pamph. L. 1924, p. 359. But a recovery in one proceeding is a complete bar to recovery in the other.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose per curiam is printed in 10 N.J. Mis. R. 308.

For the respondent-appellant, McDermott, Enright Carpenter ( James D. Carpenter, Jr).

For the petitioner-appellee, Meehan Brothers ( John J. Meehan).


The petitioner, a minor under sixteen years of age, was injured while illegally employed in defendant's bakery. He, and his parents, sued in a common law action and recovered damages. He then proceeded under his compensation petition previously filed, and received an award from the bureau. This award the Supreme Court sustained.

It was decided in Terlingo v. Belz-Parr, Inc., 106 N.J.L. 221, that the amendment to section 9 of the Workmen's Compensation act ( Pamph. L. 1924, p. 359), did not deprive the infant of his common law action, although under the act he or his dependents would be entitled to double compensation. We do not think, however, that in addition to the common law recovery, the infant may also secure compensation under the act. The legislature has, of course, given the infant an additional remedy with double compensation, but there cannot be a recovery under both the statute and the common law. Watson v. Stagg, 108 N.J.L. 444; Boyle v. VanSplinter, 101 Id. 89. The recovery under the common law action was as much a bar to recovery under the statute as recovery under the latter would be a bar to the common law action. The judgment is reversed.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF JUSTICE, J. 1.

For reversal — THE CHANCELLOR, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, HEHER, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, JJ. 11.


Summaries of

Damato v. DeLucia

Court of Errors and Appeals
Apr 27, 1933
110 N.J.L. 380 (N.J. 1933)

In Damato v. DeLucia, 110 N.J.L. 380 (E. A. 1933), the reverse situation was presented, and a worker who had received an award of damages in a civil action was held barred from pursuing a statutory remedy.

Summary of this case from Pappano v. Shop Rite of Pennington, Inc.
Case details for

Damato v. DeLucia

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY DAMATO, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. CONSTANTINO DeLUCIA…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Apr 27, 1933

Citations

110 N.J.L. 380 (N.J. 1933)
166 A. 173

Citing Cases

Seltzer v. Isaacson

This is so because plaintiff availed herself of the statutory remedy, was accorded a full hearing and…

Pappano v. Shop Rite of Pennington, Inc.

See also Seltzer v. Isaacson, 147 N.J. Super. 308 (App.Div. 1977). In Damato v. DeLucia, 110 N.J.L. 380 (E. …