Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

COVERAGE
OUTLINE

(Note: S. D. R. is an abbreviation for State Department Reports of New York).

A. Coverage in general:

a. The law of compensation and the law of negligence apply

to accidental, injuries. Yume v. Knickerbocker Portland Cement Co., S. D. R., vol. 3, p. 353; 169 App. Div. 905; 216 N. Y. 653; Naud v. King Sewing Machine Co., 95 Misc. 675, June 20, 1916; Tracy v. DeLaval Separator Co., S. D. R., vol. 7, p. 385; Eldridge v. Endicott Johnson & Co., S. D. R., vol. 8, p. 445; Surfass v. American La France Fire Engine Co., Claim No. 55428; Smart v. Cruss Kemper Co., Claim No. 67003; Rachlin v. Danziger Paint Co., Claim No. 54764. b. The law of workmen's compensation is a substitute for the law of negligence. Jensen v. Southern Pacific Co., 215 N. Y. 514; Rheinwald v. Builders' Brick and Supply Co., 168 App. Div. 425; Miller v. N. Y. Railways Co., 171 App. Div. 316.

c. The substitution of the Workmen's Compensation Law of New York for the law of negligence is but partial.

d. The law of negligence still applies in so far as the Workmen's Compensation Law has not taken its place. Shinnick v. Clover Farms Co., 90 Misc. 1; 169 App. Div. 236; Shanahan v. Monarch Engineering Co., 92 Misc. 466; 172 App. Div. 221; Herkey v. Agar Manufacturing Co., 90 Misc. 457.

e. Relative to employers' liability, coverage means the limits
of the law of workmen's compensation as a substitute for
the law of negligence. Winfield v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R.
R. Co., 216 N. Y. 284.

f. The Workmen's Compensation Law of New York is to be
construed broadly and liberally. Matter of Petrie, 215
N. Y. 335; Costello v. Taylor, 217 N. Y. 179; Winfield
v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 168 App. Div. 351; 216
N. Y. 284; Rheinwald v. Builders' Brick and Supply
Co., 168 App. Div. 425; Moore v. Lehigh Valley R. R.
Co., 169 App. Div. 177; 217 N. Y. Rep. 627.
g. Two main view-points for the subject of coverage.

B. Coverage from the view-point of employers' liability; the law of negligence still applies to accidental injuries:

a. Not arising out of or in the course of employment. 1. Accidents to persons who are not employees:

(1) Injured person an independent contractor. Rhein-
wald v. Builders' Brick and Supply Co., 168

App. Div. 425; Powley v. Vivian & Co., 169
App. Div. 93.

2. Accidents to employees during absence from duty; e. g.,
before employment begins in the morning, after em-
ployment ceases at night, during vacations, etc. De
Voe v. N. Y. State Railways, 169 App. Div. 472 ; 218
N. Y. 318; Berg v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.,
173 App. Div. 82, May 3, 1916; Pogue v. Nassau
Light and Power Co., S. D. R., vol. 1, p. 429; Sokol
v. Clyde Steamship Co., S. D. R., vol. 6, p. 339;
Hotaling v. Standard Oil Co. of N. Y., S. D. R., vol.
6, p. 308.

3. Accidents to employees, while on duty, but not incidental to their hazardous employments:

(1) Employee engaged in another and a non-hazardous
employment at the time of his injury. Newman
v. Newman, 169 App. Div. 745; 218 N. Y. 325;
Gleisner v. Gross & Herbener, 170 App. Div. 37.
(2) Employee drowned while in swimming as diversion
from work. McManus v. R. H. Macy & Co.,
S. D. R., vol. 6, p. 344.

(3) Employee injured while catching a ride along a
public highway on a private vehicle belonging to
person other than his employer. Peers v.
DeCarion & Co., S. D. R., vol. 5, p. 426.
(4) Employee injured by medicine or other substance
not taken at his employer's initiative - poison
taken by mistake. O'Neil v. Carley Heater Co.,
S. D. R., vol. 6, p. 314; 171 App. Div. 922; 218
N. Y. 214.

(5) Employee injured by horseplay. De Filippis v.
Falkenburg, 170 App. Div. 153; 219 N. Y. Rep.
-, Oct. 24, 1916.

(6) Employee's injury due to assault not connected with his work. Myers v. Smith, Claim No. 6222, March 29, 1915; Cowen v. Cowen's New Shirt Laundry, S. D. R., vol. 8, p. 481; App Div. -, Dec. 29, 1916.

(7) Employee's injury due to disease not attributable to his work. Collins v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.,

171 App. Div. 381.

b. Arising out of and in the course of employment not included within some one of the groups enumerated in Workmen's Compensation Law, § 2. (The courts by exclusion and inclusion are defining and fixing the limits of these groups.) DeLaGardelle v. Hampton Co., 167 App. Div. 617; Mihm v. Hussey, 169 App. Div. 742; Tomassi v. Christensen, 171 App. Div. 284; Guthiel v. Consolidated Gas Co., 94 Misc. 690; Grady v. Holliday, 171 App. Div. 959; Wilson v. Dorflinger & Sons, 170 App. Div. 119; 218 N. Y. 84; Sheridan v. Groll Construction Co., 171 App. Div. 958; 218 N. Y. Rep. 633; McIntire v. Hilliard Hotel Co., 171 App. Div. 958; 218 N. Y. Rep. 642; Chappelle v. Four Hundred and Twelve Broadway Co., 171 App. Div. 958; 218 N. Y. Rep. 632; Cremin v. Mordecai & Son, 171 App. Div. 958.

c. Arising out of and in the course of employment included within some one of the groups enumerated in Workmen's Compensation Law, § 2, where

*1. Compensation is not provided in schedule of Workmen's Compensation Law, § 15. Shinnick v. Clover Farms Co., 90 Misc. 1; 169 App. Div. 236.†

*2. The employee dies from accident and leaves surviving person or persons not dependent under Workmen's Compensation Law and entitled to recover under law of negligence. Shanahan v. Monarch Engineering Co., 92 Misc. 466; 172 App. Div. 221.‡

The decision of the Court of Appeals, reversing the decisions of the Appellate Division and the Commission in the Shanaban case, has been handed down, Dec. 29, 1916, while this bulletin is in press. Its effect is to exclude operation of the law of negligence in these two instances.

Compensation for disfigurement has been provided for by amendment of L. 1916, ch. 622, to § 15, subd. 3, of the Workmen's Compensation Law.

Compare amendment of L. 1916, ch. 622, to Workmen's Compensation Law, § 11.

3. The injured employee is a farm laborer or a domestic

servant.

4. The employer has failed to take out insurance under the Workmen's Compensation Law. Miller v. N. Y. Railways Co., 171 App. Div. 316; Lindebauer v. Weiner, 94 Misc. 612; Dick v. Knoperbaum, 157 N. Y. Supp. 754, March 13, 1916.

5. The accident is due to the wilful intention of the injured employee to bring about the injury or death of himself or another. Ignatowsky v. Berman, S. D. R., vol. 6, p. 326; Ludwig v. Groh's Sons, S. D. R., vol. 8, p. 426.

6. The accident is due solely to intoxication of the injured

employee while on duty. Butler v. Sheffield Farms, S. D. R., vol. 6, p. 368; Minnaugh v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., S. D. R., vol. 8, p. 466; Carroll v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 169 App. Div. 450; 218 N. Y. 435; Dunn v. West End Brewing Co., S. D. R., vol. 5, p. 380; 174 App. Div. 900, June 30, 1916; Kiernan v. Friestedt Underpinning Co., S. D. R., vol. 5, p. 390; 171 App. Div. 539; Berg v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 173 App. Div. 82, May 3, 1916; Sullivan v. Industrial Engineering Co., 173 App. Div. 65, May 3, 1916; Winters v. New York Herald Co., 171 App. Div. 960.

7. The employee is injured through negligence of another not in the same employ. Lester v. Otis Elevator Co., 90 Misc. 649; 169 App. Div. 613; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. N. Y. Railways Co., 93 Misc. 118; Cahill v. Terry & Tench Co., 173 App. Div. 418, June, 1916; Winter v. Doelger Brewing Co., 95 Misc. 150; Miller v. N. Y. Rys. Co., 171 App. Div. 316; Herkey v. Agar Manufacturing Co., 90 Misc. 457; Woodward v. Conklin & Son, 171 App. Div. 736.

8. The employment is not conducted for pecuniary gain. Bargey v. Massaro Macaroni Co., 170 App. Div. 103; 218 N. Y. 410; Mihm v. Hussey, 169 App. Div. 742; Opinion of Attorney-General, Report for 1914, vol. 2, p. 191; Jennings v. Department of Public Works of

the State of New York, S. D. R., vol. 5, p. 416; Allen v. State of New York, S. D. R., vol. 6, p. 376; 173 App. Div. 455, June 30, 1916; Opinion of Attorney-General, July 3, 1916.

9. The injured employee is working solely in an employ

ment not covered by Workmen's Compensation Law,

§ 2, though for an employer who is so covered. Aylesworth v. Phoenix Cheese Co., 170 App. Div. 34.* 10. The injured employee is working in an employment not covered by Workmen's Compensation Law, § 2, though for an employer who is also engaged in another and an entirely distinct employment that is so covered. Sickles v. Ballston R. S. Co., 171 App. Div. 108; Mandel v. Steinhardt & Bros., 173 App. Div. 515, June 30, 1916; Lyon v. Windsor & Davis, 173 App. Div. 377, May 18, 1916; Brown v. Richmond Light & R. R. Co., 173 App. Div. 432, June 30, 1916. 11. The injured employee's contract of employment relates solely to work to be performed outside of the State. Gardner v. Horseheads Construction Co., 171 App. Div. 66; Pritz v. Beaumont Co., 170 App. Div. 943. 12. The injured employee neither resides in, nor is injured in New York State, though his contract of employment has been made there. Lloyd v. Power Specialty Co., S. D. R., vol. 7, p. 409; Lehmann v. Ramo Films, 92 Misc. 418.

13. The accident is due to negligence of a railroad engaged in interstate commerce. Winfield v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 216 N. Y. 284; Jensen v. Southern Pacific Co., 215 N. Y. 514.

14. The accident occurs upon waters subject to the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States courts. Walker v. Clyde Steamship Co., 215 N. Y. 529.

C. Coverage from the view-point of workmen's compensation; the Workmen's Compensation Law applies to accidental injuries arising in employment included within some one of the groups enumerated in § 2, even when:

Since the determination in the Aylesworth case, the ice industry has been made a hazardous employment by amendment of L. 1916, ch. 622, to Workmen's Compensation Law, § 2, group 25.

« AnteriorContinuar »