Moore v. City of Paterson
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau in which Deputy Commissioner Stahl made an award in favor of the petitioner.
The uncontroverted facts are: that Mrs. Frances Moore, the widow of Edward Moore, who in his lifetime was a fireman employed by the city of Paterson, and had been so employed for thirty-one years, was married to the petitioner thirty-six years and they had lived together continuously. The household consisted of the petitioner, decedent and three children over sixteen years of age. On the day in question, July 11th, 1938, at about five p. M., a very warm and humid day, after partaking of sandwiches and coffee in the engine house, the decedent was called to active service by the sounding of an alarm. Attired in regular fire equipment, helmet, boots and rubber coat, he responded to the call taking his position on the back of the hose cart. The fire was at the Wright Aeronautical plant located at Beckwith avenue and Lewis street in the city of Paterson. One member of Fire
The respondent contends that decedent’s death was not due to injuries sustained in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment but rather that his death was due to natural causes.
The petitioner contends that while the decedent was suffering from a cardiac degeneration, a hypertension heart, a beginning decompensation, arteriosclerosis, which condition was found to be present July 8th, 1938, by Dr. Cremens when he examined the decedent at his behest for the purpose of securing increased compensation from the United States gov-
Tt seems to me it cannot be gainsaid that a fireman engaged in answering- an alarm of fire and performing the duties necessarily connected therewith is under unusual strain and excitement and this no matter what his experience in that particular avocation or calling.
As usual there is some difference of opinion on the part of the physicians. A careful analysis of all the evidence leads me to the conclusion that the petitioner has maintained the burden cast upon her by law and has established by the greater weight of the evidence a complete chain of causation which brought into acute activity the diseased condition of Mr. Moore which hastened or caused his death while in the performance of his duties as a fireman. Geizel v. The Regina Co., 96 N. J. L. 31; 114 Atl. Rep. 328; affirmed, 97 N. J. L. 331; 116 Atl. Rep. 924; Winter v. Atkinson Frizolle Co., 88 N. J. L. 401; 96 Atl. Rep. 360.
A rather belated memo was submitted by respondent which is not properly before the court, but it may not be amiss to say, however, in Campanile v. The City of Asbury Park, 118 N. J. L. 480, Mr. Justice Parker speaking for the court said, “The petitioner was employed as a policeman and was on police duty at the time of the alleged accident. He is therefore within the purview of section 1 of chapter 145 of the laws of 1913 (Pamph. L., p. 230) as amended in 1927 (Pamph. L., p. 239) and further amended in 1931 (Pamph. L., p. 873).” L am unable to differentiate the case at bar. Fire Commissioners, &c., v. Morris, 12 N. J. Mis. R. 153; 170 Atl. Rep. 221; Jersey City v. Borst, 90 N. J. L. 454; 101 Atl. Rep. 1033.
R. S. 40:174-201 is not applicable. See McAnney v. Galoway Township, 120 N. J. L. 311; 199 Atl. Rep. 369.
The conclusion of the bureau should be affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.