Larscy v. T. Hogan & Sons, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 January 1925
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: LARSCY v. T. HOGAN & SONS, Inc.

239 N.Y. 298

146 N.E. 430

LARSCY

v.T. HOGAN & SONS, Inc.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 21, 1925.

Action by William Larscy against T. Hogan & Sons, Inc. Judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed by the Appellate Division (208 App. Div. 835, 203 N. Y. S. 938), and the defendant appeals by permission.

Judgment modified and affirmed.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.

Platt & Field (Eli J. Blair, of counsel), for appellant.

John C. Robinson and Morris A. Wainger, both of New York City, for respondent.

CRANE, J.

By reason of our recent decision in Brassel v. Electric Welding Co. of America, 239 N. Y. 78, 145 N. E. 745, a word may be necessary in explanation of our affirmance of the judgment in the present case. In the Brassell Case an award was made by the State Industrial Board under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Consol. Law, c. 67) of a sum of money to an injured employee for a temporary disability. The full amount of the award was paid and accepted. As the injuries were received on navigable waters, the state Industrial Board was without jurisdiction to make the award. We held, however, that, even though the award were void, yet the acceptance of the amount of the award in full payment and satisfaction of the employee's claim was a discharge of the defendant's liability in an action at common law for negligence. The receipt and retention of the full amount of the award as full and complete payment amounted, we said, to an accord and satisfaction.

The facts in this case are different. The accident to the plaintiff in the case at bar occurred on November 10, 1919. At that time there was in force an Act of Congress of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 395, c. 97 [U. S. Comp. St. 1918, U. S. Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 991(3) 1233]), which saved to maritime employees the rights given to them under the Workmen's Compensation Laws of the various states. Section 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Law of this state (Cons. Laws, c. 67), as amended by chapter 629 of the Laws of 1919, provided that an employer and employee in case of injury might enter into an agreement for compensation which, after approval by the Commission, would result in an award. A report of such an agreement was to be made to the Commission within 10 days after its making, signed by both the employer and employee. After notice to the beneficiary, the Commission, if the agreement were strictly in accordance with the facts and provisions of the law, was to approve the agreement which approval would constitute an award.

[1][2][3] Larscy, the employee, who was a stevedore working on a ship, and his employer, T. Hogan & Sons, Inc., after his injury entered into an agreement upon a blank form stated to be a ‘joint report of agreement as to payment of compensation.’ It recited:

‘We * * * have reached an agreement in regard to compensation for the injury sustained by said employee, and submit this joint report of such claim and agreement. We agree that the facts herein stated are the basis of a claim made and to be paid in strict accordance with the Compensation Law; and we further agree to receive and to pay compensation * * * as may be determined from the nature, extent, duration and result of the injury described herein, and as may be awarded by the state Industrial Commission.’

Then follows the statement regarding the accident, the compensation to be paid, and the time for payment.

The employer paid to the plaintiff the sum of $300, and apparently was willing to pay the balance, about $420, but the employee refused to receive it, in view of the decision on May 17, 1920, of the United States Supreme Court in Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149, 40 S. Ct. 438, 64 L. Ed. 834, 11 A. L. R. 1145, holding that the Workmen's Compensation Law was without jurisdiction in a case like this. The plaintiff thereupon brought this action to recover his damages for negligence.

The defendant set up in its answer this agreement of March 12, 1920, made under the Workmen's Compensation Law, and alleged that plaintiff agreed to take in full settlement and full satisfaction of his alleged claim against the defendant any amount provided under the Workmen's Compensation Law, and that, relying upon said agreement by plaintiff, it had paid $270, leaving a balance of $420, which the plaintiff had refused to take.

We therefore have in this case an agreement which may or may not have resulted in an award and under it part payment by the employer. Payment, and not the agreement, was to be the full and complete satisfaction....