Capizzi v. Southern Dist. Reporters, Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 January 1984
• Citation: 471 N.Y.S.2d 554,459 N.E.2d 847,61 N.Y.2d 50
• Parties: , 459 N.E.2d 847 In the Matter of Nelida CAPIZZI, Claimant, v. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, INC., et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 554

471 N.Y.S.2d 554

61 N.Y.2d 50, 459 N.E.2d 847

In the Matter of Nelida CAPIZZI, Claimant, v. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, INC., et al., Respondents.

Workers' Compensation Board, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 17, 1984.

[61 N.Y.2d 51] Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Peter H. Schiff, Carlin Meyer, Reed Brody and Michele M. Woodard, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellant.

Raymond C. Green and Louis Busell, New York City, for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

WACHTLER, Judge.

The question presented for our review on this workers' compensation claim is whether claimant's injury, resulting from a slip and fall in a hotel bathtub, arose out of and in the course of her employment. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the accident, notice and causal relationship were established. The Appellate Division, 93 A.D.2d 940, 462 N.Y.S.2d 303, reversed on the ground that showering is a purely personal act, holding claimant's injury noncompensable as a matter of law. The Workers' Compensation Board now appeals to the court.

Claimant Nelida Capizzi was employed as a transcriber-typist by respondent Southern District Reporters, Inc., a court reporting firm located in New York City. On December 30, 1980 respondent employer sent claimant and four other coemployees on a business trip to Toronto, Canada, to transcribe notes of the minutes of depositions being held there. Later that evening, the hearings were suspended in anticipation of the New Year's holiday. At approximately 7:00 a.m. the following morning, claimant slipped and fell as she was stepping into the hotel bathtub to take a shower in preparation for her return trip to New York.

As a consequence of the injuries sustained as a result of the fall, claimant filed a claim for compensation benefits. Following a hearing, the workers' compensation law judge found that accident, notice and causal relationship were established for the injuries sustained. On review, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, finding that claimant was required to travel to Toronto on the business of her employer, that she was directed to remain at that place for a specified length of time, and that her status as an employee continued during the entire trip. The board further found that claimant was in the hotel room for the employer's benefit and that the environment in which claimant was placed by the employment contributed to the accident. The board concluded that claimant's accident arose out of and in the course of her employment.

The Appellate Division reversed, holding that injuries sustained by an out-of-town employee due to a slip and fall while showering in a motel room are ordinarily noncompensable because they are attributable solely to the personal acts of the employee unless the claimant's employment first causes him or her to become physically dirty and then requires a neat appearance. The court reasoned that the uncontested facts of the present case fall within the general rule, and that showering is a purely personal act, making claimant's injury noncompensable as a matter of law. The court was also of the view that the board's finding that the environment in which claimant was placed by the employment contributed to the accident was unsupported by the evidence in the record. We now reverse and reinstate the decision of the board.

Traditionally, injuries sustained by an employee while traveling in the business of his employer were compensable if they occurred while the employee was actually acting in furtherance of his employer's business (Matter of Davis v. Newsweek Mag., 305 N.Y. 20, 110 N.E.2d 406). This theory of compensability has been expanded in recognition of the fact that a change in environment creates a greater risk of injury to the employee so that injuries to a traveling employee may be compensable even if the employee at the time of the accident was not engaged in the duties of his employment (see Matter of Markoholz v. General Elec. Co., 13 N.Y.2d 163, 243 N.Y.S.2d 853, 193 N.E.2d 637 [decedent attending international conference at employer's request killed in airplane accident at the end of a week's vacation following the conference]; Matter of McKay v. Republic Vanguard Ins. Co., 27 A.D.2d 607, 275 N.Y.S.2d 742, affd. 20 N.Y.2d 884, 285 N.Y.S.2d 287, 232 N.E.2d 854 [district manager killed in a hotel fire]; Matter of Regan v. Food Store Demonstrators, 12 A.D.2d 852, 209 N.Y.S.2d 962 [claimant slipped and fell on a "waxy" motel floor after she arose from a chair where she had been reading a magazine]; Matter of Schreiber v. Revlon Prods. Corp., 5 A.D.2d 207, 171 N.Y.S.2d 122 [claimant slipped and fell on icy sidewalk while returning to hotel after dinner] ). In cases where an employee is injured while traveling on behalf of his employer the general principle of compensability also applies. Thus, if an employee is "directed, as part of his duties, to remain in a particular place or locality * * * for a specified length of time * * * the rule applied is simply that the employee is not expected to wait immobile, but may indulge in any reasonable activity at that place, and if he does so the risk inherent in such activity is an incident...