Katz v. A. Kadans & Co.

• Decision Date: 24 January 1922
• Citation: 232 N.Y. 420,134 N.E. 330
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: KATZ v. A. KADANS & CO. et al.

232 N.Y. 420

134 N.E. 330

KATZ

v.A. KADANS & CO. et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 24, 1922.

Proceedings by Louis Katz for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 67), opposed by A. Kadans & Co., employer, and the Travelers' Insurance Company, insurance carrier. From an order of the Appellate Division (198 App. Div. 962,189 N. Y. Supp. 946) affirming an award by the State Industrial Commission, the employer and insurance carrier appeal.

Affirmed.

See, also, 198 App. Div. 980,190 N. Y. Supp. 933.

Hiscock, C. J., and McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ., dissenting.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third department.

E. C. Sherwood, William B. Davis and Benjamin C. Loder, all of New York City, for appellants.

Charles D. Newton, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, of Albany, of counsel), for respondent.

POUND, J.

This is a workmen's compensation case. Louis Katz, the claimant, was a dairyman's chauffeur. On May 7, 1920, when he was driving his employer's car west on Canal street after delivering some cheese, an insane man stabbed him. A lot of people were running after the insane man and he stabbed any one near him. The question is whether claimant's injuries arose out of his employment.

If the work itself involves exposure to perils of the street, strange, unanticipated, and infrequent though they may be, the employee passes along the streets when on his master's occasions under the protection of the statute. This is the rule unequivocally laid down by the House of Lords in England:

‘When a workman is sent into the street on his master's business, * * * his employment necessarily involves exposure to the risks of the streets and injury from such a cause [necessarily] arises out of his employment.’ Finlay, L. C., in Dennis v. White, [1917] L. R. App. Cas. 479.

So we have to concern ourselves only with the question whether claimant's accident arose out of a street risk.

Cases may arise where one is hurt in the street, but where the risk is of a general nature, not peculiar to the street. Lightning strikes fortuitously in the street; bombs dropped by enemy aircraft do not expose to special danger persons in a street as distinguished from those in houses. Allcock v. Rogers, [1918] House of Lords, 11 B. W. C. C. 149. The danger must result from the place to make it a street risk, but that is enough if the workman is in the place by reason of his employment, and in the discharge of his duty to his employer. The street becomes a dangerous place when street brawlers, highwaymen, escaping criminals, or violent madmen are afoot therein as they sometimes are. The danger of being struck by them by accident is a street risk because it is incident to passing through or being on the street when dangerous characters are abroad.

Particularly on the crowded streets of a great city, not only do vehicles collide, pavements become out of repair, and crowds jostle, but mad or biting dogs may run wild, gunmen may discharge their weapons, police officers may shoot at fugitives fleeing from justice, or other things may happen from which accidental injuries result to people on the streets which are peculiar to the use of the streets and do not...