Legal Opinion

Patterson v. Rynar

New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau

Decided May 20, 1940Published

1Opinion of the Court

# Hs % Hi

I find from the proofs that the respondent is a contractor engaged in the construction business. He had contracted to remove stucco from a building situate at Ho. 118 Fourth avenue, East Orange, Hew Jersey, and on April 28th, 1938, he and several workmen were so engaged. Patterson was one of the workmen on the job. It was Patterson’s duty to rip stucco from the side of the building by the use of a crowbar.

On that day—Apiri 28th, 1938'—at about eleven-thirty A. M., Patterson was engaged in the performance of this task and was standing in an alley about two or two and one-half feet…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bryant v. FissellSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1913
  2. Jackson v. D., L. W.R.R. Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1933
  3. Furferi v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1937
  4. Lundy v. George Brown & Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1919
  5. Lundy v. George Brown & Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1919

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API