Field v. Charmette Knitted Fabric Co.

• Decision Date: 03 May 1927
• Citation: 245 N.Y. 139,156 N.E. 642
• Parties: FIELD et al. v. CHARMETTE KNITTED FABRIC CO. et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

245 N.Y. 139

156 N.E. 642

FIELD et al.

v.CHARMETTE KNITTED FABRIC CO. et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 3, 1927.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Miriam B. Field, infant daughter, and Elias Israels Field, dependent father, claimants, for the death of Isaac Field, opposed by the Charmette Knitted Fabric Company, employer, and the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, insurance carrier. From an order of the Appellate Division (219 App. Div. 753, 219 N. Y. S. 813) reversing an award of the State Industrial Board and dismissing the claim, claimants and the Industrial Board appeal.

Reversed, and award confirmed.

Kellogg, J., dissenting.Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third department.

H. H. Nordlinger and Samuel H. Hofstadter, both of New York City, for claimants appellants.

Albert Ottinger, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellant State Industrial Board.

Wm. Warren Dimmick, of New York City, for respondents.

CARDOZO, C. J.

One Field was general manager and superintendent of a mill. Magid, a knitter in the mill, was doing unsatisfactory work, and Field ordered him discharged. The message giving word of the discharge was brought to Magid about 5:15 p. m. He kept on working, however, till 5:30, the closing hour for the factory. Field, finding him in the building, ordered him to leave. Angry words followed; Magid asking whether Field was strong enough to put him out, and Field retaliating by raising a bobbin in the air. Other workmen who were by pulled Magid away. A few minutes later, Field went downstairs and out of the building. Magid, waiting for him on the sidewalk, three or four feet from the door, challenged him to fight. Field tried to walk away, but Magid struck him in the face. He fell backward, fracturing his skull, and died. An award in favor of dependent relatives was reversed upon appeal.

[2] Our decisions make it plain that the injury to Field was one that might fairly be found by the triers of the facts to have arisen ‘out of’ the employment. Workmen's Comp. Act; Cons. Laws, c. 67, § 2, subd. 7. Magid was the aggressor in an assault provoked by the discharge and the ensuing war of words. Rydeen v. Monarch Furniture Co., 240 N. Y. 295, 148 N. E. 527;Knocks v. Metal Packing Corporation, 231 N. Y. 78, 131 N. E. 741;Fried v. Quinlan, Inc., 242 N. Y. 496, 152 N. E. 399;Verschleiser v. Joseph Stern & Son, 229 N. Y. 192, 128 N. E. 126; cf. Zygmuntowicz v. American Steel & Wire Co. of New Jersey, 240 Mass. 421, 424, 134 N. E. 385. The argument is made, however, that the injury did not arise ‘in the course of employment’ (Workmen's Comp. Act, § 2, subd. 7), for the reason that Field, after finishing the work of the day, had left the premises or plant (section 2, subd. 4), and was out upon the public sidewalk. If he had been struck within the threshold, liability would be conceded. Because he was struck without, liability has failed.

We think the line of division is drawn too narrowly and closely when circumstances of place are thus considered to the exclusion of all others. The quarrel outside of the mill was merely a continuation or extention of the quarrel begun within. Magid, pulled away from his enemy indoors, was waiting for his vengeance at the gate, and took it on the instant. The rule is well settled that an employee, even after closing time, is in the course of employment until a suitable opportunity has been given to leave the place of work. Lynch v. City of New York, 242 N. Y. 115, 118, 151 N. E. 149. For that reason, claims have been sustained for injuries on stairs or in elevators, though the stairs or the elevators were not controlled by the employer, a tenant of a loft above. Ross v. Howieson, 232 N. Y. 604, 134 N. E. 589, reversing 198 App. Div. 674, 191 N. Y. S. 276, on the dissenting opinion in that court; Martin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 197 App. Div. 382, 189 N. Y. S. 467;Id., 233 N. Y. 653, 135 N. E. 956; Sundine's Case, 218 Mass. 1, ...