Artonio v. Hirsch
| Decision Date | 19 November 1956 |
| Citation | 4 Misc.2d 42,157 N.Y.S.2d 398 |
| Parties | Vincent ARTONIO v. Alexander P. HIRSCH, Henry Hirsch, David Hirsch, Arthur Richenthal, Emanuel Miller and Welbilt Corporation. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Samuel Douglas, Brooklyn, for plaintiff.
Irving M. Moss, New York City, for defendant Arthur Richenthal.
Arthur Richenthal, New York City, for all defendants except Arthur Richenthal.
On this motion by corporate defendant and its officers and directors as codefendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint under Rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, there is presented the question of the right of an employee to sue his employer at common law for damages resulting from a serious injury alleged to have been caused by the wilful and wanton acts of the defendants who are covered by Workmen's Compensation insurance.
Defendants assert that since the corporate defendant has provided Workmen's Compensation insurance, the employee cannot maintain a common-law action for damages but is confined solely to a right of compensation thereunder.
Plaintiff, as an employee of the defendant corporation, was engaged in the manufacture of gas ranges, a hazardous employment, and having received injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment, even though covered by Workmen's Compensation, now seeks redress by instituting an action at common law. Plaintiff contends that the remedy provided by section 11 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is not exclusive, but that he has a cause of action either at common law or under the Employer's Liability Act, by reason of the wanton and wilful affirmative acts of defendants.
The Workmen's Compensation Law deals with and has application to accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of employment and not to an intentional act by an employer, which act causes a serious injury to an employee. Barrencotto v. Cocker Saw Co., 266 N.Y. 139, 194 N.E. 61.
It is well settled that an intentional tort or an intended wrong is not the 'wrong' which the Legislature intended would bar a common-law cause of action against either an employer or employee.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delamotte v. Unitcast Division of Midland Ross Corp.
...malicious tort of the employer, such as the employer's fraud. Boek v. Wong Hing (1930), 180 Minn. 470, 231 N.W. 233; Artonio v. Hirsch (1956), 4 Misc.2d 42, 157 N.Y.S.2d 398, modified 3 A.D.2d 939, 163 N.Y.S.2d 489. Cf. Skelton v. W. T. Grant Co. (C.A. 5, 1964), 331 F.2d 593; Cohen v. Lion ......
-
Empie v. Entwhistle
...carry Workmen's Compensation Insurance, where defendant employers are liable to employee plaintiff in either event. (Artonio v. Hirsch, 4 Misc.2d 42, 157 N.Y.S.2d 398) affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds (3 A.D.2d 939, 163 N.Y.S.2d This is not a case where the plaintiff m......
-
Fragnoli v. Israel
...fellow employee for wilful tort of intentional wrong (DeCoigne v. Ludlum Steel Co., 251 App.Div. 662, 297 N.Y.S. 636; Artonio v. Hirsch, 4 Misc.2d 42, 157 N.Y.S.2d 398), the complaint herein, despite arguments of counsel to the contrary, pleads only a cause in The first cause of action must......