Owen v. Oneida Limited
| Decision Date | 21 June 1962 |
| Citation | 229 N.Y.S.2d 325,16 A.D.2d 1005 |
| Parties | Claim of Helen L. OWEN, Appellant, v. ONEIDA LIMITED et al., Respondents, Aggregate Trust Fund, Respondent, Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kramer, Wales & Robinson and Richard S. Ringwood, Binghamton, for appellant.
S. Chandler Fraser, Syracuse, for respondents.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., for Workmen's Compensation Board.
Before BERGAN, P. J., and GIBSON, HERLIHY, REYNOLDS and TAYLOR, JJ.
Appeal by claimant-widow from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board finding that the accident, which caused the death of Richard L. Owen, did not arise out of and in the course of employment and disallowing death benefits.
Decedent was employed as a mechanical engineer specializing in the developing and tooling of jet propeller blades under a contract which his employer had with a division of General Motors. In the course of duties he was required to visit and place contracts with various tool-design firms throughout the State. On September 5, 1956 decedent was required to make such a trip to Vestal, New York. He had originally planned to take a company car for the trip but when one proved unavailable he drove his own car. Despite the fact that he did not leave till around noon he planned to return home that evening. What happened next is disputed. Robert Lewis, owner of a tool and design firm in Vestal, testified at the hearing in 1960 that he had previously requested that a member of the Oneida Limited sales staff visit his firm and that on September 5, 1956 decedent had called his office at 5:00 p. m. and suggested a meeting. Since the plant was closing down Lewis stated he suggested they meet at the Red Barn Restaurant in Vestal and decedent agreed. At the Red Barn Lewis and decedent had some drinks, ate dinner and discussed business until 8:30 p. m. when decedent left. The respondents' employer and its carrier take the position that decedent had no business connection with Lewis' firm and produced a signed statement by Lewis made 35 days after the accident in which Lewis stated he did not have any appointment to meet decedent at the Red Barn but had met him there by accident and that decedent had left at 9:30 p. m. rather than 8:30. That during the course of their conversation some business was discussed is not disputed. The record next reveals that at 10:00 p. m., as prearranged, decedent phoned his wife and told her that he had been delayed because of his meeting with Lewis and that he was then 'around Binghamton'. Sometime between 11:30 and 12:45 decedent stopped at the Munnsville American Legion Club ostensibly to use the phone to call his wife. While at the Legion he had two drinks and engaged in conversation mostly social in nature with two Oneida plant employees who he happened to meet there. At 1:30 decedent and the two employees went to the Bar-B-Que Pit in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bush v. Parmenter, Forsythe, Rude & Dethmers
...return to homeward journey failed to return him to scope of employment), cert den 85 N.M. 5, 508 P.2d 1302 (1973); Owen v. Oneida Ltd., 16 A.D.2d 1005, 229 N.Y.S.2d 325 (1962) (sociable drinking until 2:30 a.m. following a chance dinner meeting with a customer noncompensable); and O'Connell......
-
Calloway v. State Workmen's Compensation Com'r
...88 N.J.Super. 406, 212 A.2d 579 (1965); Carter v. Burn Construction Co., 85 N.M. 27, 508 P.2d 1324 (Ct.App.1973); Owen v. Oneida, Ltd., 16 A.D.2d 1005, 229 N.Y.S.2d 325 (1962); Alford v. Quality Chevrolet Co., 246 N.C. 214, 97 S.E.2d 869 (1957); Scarpelli v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bo......
-
Boyd v. Francis Ford, Inc., 32--769
...is generally denied. Matter of Pasquel v. Coverly, 4 N.Y.2d 28, 171 N.Y.S.2d 848, 148 N.E.2d 899 (1958); Matter of Owen v. Oneida Ltd., 16 A.D.2d 1005, 229 N.Y.S.2d 325 (1962); Matter of Robinson v. Village of Greenport, 27 A.D.2d 599, 275 N.Y.S.2d 885 The problem with applying the above pr......
-
Marsh v. Rochester Tel. Corp.
...a 'personal deviation' citing Matter of Pasquel v. Coverly, 4 N.Y.2d 28, 171 N.Y.S.2d 848, 148 N.E.2d 899 and Matter of Owen v. Oneida Limited, 16 A.D.2d 1005, 229 N.Y.S.2d 325. Such a determination, however, is factual and we cannot say as a matter of law that the board was required to fin......