86 N.J.L. 26 | N.J. | 1914
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tire case made by tbe complaint is that an-employe of the plaintiff was injured through the negligence-of the defendant under such circumstances that he would be-entitled to compensation under the act of 1911. The complaint avers that the plaintiff has lost his services, and has, in addition, been obliged to spend money for medical and!
The ease is one of first impression. We are referred to no-authority precisely in point and we have found none. The fact that the legislature in 1913 made special provision for such a case is evidence that in the contemplation of that body the right did not exist under the act of 1911, but it is not conclusive since the act of 1913 might be said to limit a preexisting right of recovery of the employer under the principles of the common law, instead of giving him a new right. We must deal with the question therefore upon principle.
The case resembles Dale v. Grant 34 N. J. L. 142. In that case it was held that a party who, by contract, is entitled to all the articles to be manufactured by an incorporated company, cannot maintain an action against a wrong-doer who,, by a trespass, stops the machinery of Ihe company and prevents it from furnishing manufactured goods to as great an extent as it otherwise would have dene. Dale v. Grant, however, is not controlling, since the right of an employer to recover for less of services of his employe is well settled and is not questioned by the present defendant. This case- involves the novel question whether the employer is entitled also to recover a sum which he has contracted to pay his employe. The obligation under the act of 1911 is purely voluntary; neither employer nor employe is obliged to accept the provisions of section 2, and either may terminate the contract by sixty days’ notice, in writing. The use of the words “agreement” and “contract” in the statute, and the provision that every contract of hiring shall be presumed to have been made with reference to the provision of section 2, suffice to show that the
Whether the economists are right or not in their view of the’final incidence of the cost of the statutory compensation, it is certain that the intent of the act was to secure compensation to workmen for the perils of their employment, the risk of which it had been previously thought they assumed as a part of the contract of emplojunent, for which they were supposed rightly or wrongly to be compensated in their wages. In any event the right to the statutory compensation is a part of the compensation of the employe for services rendered, for which the employer receives a quid pro quo. If it were not so, the employer would cease io employ. The compensation
The legal right of an employer to recover damages for the loss of services of employes due to a tortious act of a third person has never included the wages paid his servants for past work or the wages he might pay for future work. What the employer loses is the value of the services to him; what the present plaintiff seeks to recover is the value of the services to the employe. The employer loses what he might have made over and above the cost of the employe’s services; he does not in any proper sense lose the necessary expense of securing that labor.
The motion is granted, with costs.