Agresta v. New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co.
New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau
1Opinion of the Court
% & % % ❖ ❖
The facts in the case sub judice are admitted. Petitioner was employed by the respondent company as a track laborer who at the time of accident was tightening a bolt on a rail on the coal bridge located in the respondent’s yards at Weehawken, New Jersey. This bridge was used to unload coal cars into bins which coal was transported by boats outside of state.
Petitioner stresses point that compensation had been paid under the state statute. The payment of compensation is not an admission of liability and does not bar employer from interposing any valid defense at time of hearing.
I…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Carberry v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1919
- Hart v. Central R.R. Co. of N.J.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1929
- Johnson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1921
- McLean v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1922
- Estate of Brinsko v. Lehigh Valley RailroadSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.