Daly v. Bates & Roberts

• Decision Date: 12 July 1918
• Citation: 224 N.Y. 126,120 N.E. 118
• Parties: DALY et al. v. BATES & ROBERTS et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

224 N.Y. 126

120 N.E. 118

DALY et al.

v.BATES & ROBERTS et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 12, 1918.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Proceedings by Annie Daly under the Workmen's Compensation Act to obtain compensation for personal injuries, opposed by Bates & Roberts, the employer, and the Frankfort General Insurance Company. From an order (-- App. Div. --, 169 N. Y. Supp. 1090) of the Third Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, affirming an award made by the State Industrial Commission, the employer appeals. Reversed.William A. Jones, Jr., of New York City, for appellants.

Merton E. Lewis, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, of Albany, of counsel), for respondent State Industrial Commission.

HOGAN, J.

The employer is engaged in conducting a hotel in the city of New York. The claimant was employed as a laundress in the hotel. Her hours of employment were usually from 7:15 a. m. to 5 or 5:30 p. m. As compensation for her labor claimant received as wages a money consideration, boarding and lodging, and the privilege after the regular working hours of the day to use the plant of the employer to do her laundry work.

On March 12, 1917, the claimant finished her work at half past 4 o'clock in the afternoon. During the evening, while she was engaged in the laundry doing her personal laundry, she sustained injury to her wrist. The Industrial Commission determined the in the course of her employment, and made in the course of her employment. and made an award therefor. Upon appeal the determination of the commission was affirmed by the Appellate Division. In Matter of Heitz v. Ruppert, 218 N. Y. 148, 151,112 N. E. 750, L. R. A. 1917A, 344, we sought to establish general principles applicable to a construction of subdivision 7 of section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 67), a recitation of which will bear repetition here:

‘The statute does not provide an insurance against every accident happening to the workman while he is engaged in the employment. The words ‘arising out of and in the course of employment’ are conjunctive, and relief can be had under the act only when the accident arose both ‘out of’ and ‘in the course of’ employment. The injury must be received (1) while the workman is doing the duty he is employed to perform, and also (2) as a natural incident of the work. It must be one of the risks connected with the employment, flowing therefrom as a natural consequence and directly connected with the work.'

Applying the principles stated to the case at bar, we are led to the conclusion that the injury to climant did not arise from or in the course of her employment. She was employed to perform the laundry work of her employer. Such employment was to be performed within established hours. On the day in question claimant had completed her labors for her employer some few hours before the happening of the accident. Her duty to her employer did not require her presence in the laundry again until the following morning. The accident occurred in the evening while she was engaged in doing work personal to herself. At that time she was not engaged in the...