Legal Opinion
Hulley v. Moosbrugger
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided November 15, 1915PublishedCited by 52 opinions
On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 87 N. J. L. 103.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Walker, Chancellor.
The question argued, and therefore the only one to be decided upon this appeal, is as to whether or not an employer is liable under the Workmen’s Compensation act (Pamph. L. 1911, p. 134) to make compensation for injury to an employe which was the result of horse-play or sky-larking, so called. The injury in this case resulted in death. The facts are succinctly stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Kalisch in the Supreme Court, as follows:
“William Hulley, a journeyman plumber, the petitioner’s decedent, was in the employ of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McNicol's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
3Cited by52 opinions
- Matter of Heitz v. . RuppertNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Coronado Beach Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Georgia Casualty Co. v. MartinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924
- Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Hale v. Savage Fire Brick Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.