De Voe v. New York State Rys
| Decision Date | 06 June 1916 |
| Citation | 113 N.E. 256,218 N.Y. 318 |
| Parties | DE VOE v. NEW YORK STATE RYS. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court,Appellate Division, Third Department.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Minnie De Voe to obtain compensation for the death of her husband, Edward De Voe, opposed by the New York State Railways, employer and self-insurer. Compensation was awarded, the award vacated and set aside by the Appellate Division, and from the order (169 App. Div. 472,155 N. Y. Supp. 12), the dependant appeals. Order affirmed.
Willard Bartlett, C. J., dissenting.Egburt E. Woodbury, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellant.
Warnick J. Kernan, of Utica, for respondent.
At the time of receiving the injuries resulting in his death Edward De Voe resided at Mohawk, and was employed as a motorman by the New York State Railways, a street railway corporation.
On September 12, 1914, at about 4:50 p. m., and after he had finished his work for the day, and as he was hurrying from the car barn at Mohawk to catch a car of the New York State Railways, which was just coming to a stop before the car barn, he was struck by an automobilerunning near the curb, receiving injuries from which he died three days later. The purpose of De Voe in taking or attempting to take a car was to proceed to Herkimer to have his watch tested. It was understood when employés were hired that they should have free transportation on the cars of the company. It was a rule of the company (employer) that the men should have their watches tested once in every two weeks, under penalty of loss of one day. The employés were not paid for the time which they consumed in the period of testing their watches, or of going to or from the place the test might be made. The person who made the test was designated and paid by the employer.
The question is whether death resulted from ‘an accidental personal injury sustained by the employé arising out of and in the course of his employment.’ W. C. L. § 10, Cons. Laws, c. 67. The employé is not insured generally against accident while working for the street railway corporation. At home or on the street he may meet with accident not arising out of or in the course of his employment. The act does not cover such cases. The employé gets up in the morning, dresses himself and goes to work because of his employment; yet if he meets with an accident before coming to the employers' premises that is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ricciardi v. Aniero Concrete Co., Inc.
... ... The employer thereupon agreed to defray his tolls on the Garden State Parkway, amounting to $10 weekly. Petitioner estimated the total out-of-pocket cost of traveling to work by car at $25 weekly. His wages at the ... See Costa ... v. New York State Workmen's Compensation Board, 34 A.D.2d 585, 308 N.Y.S.2d 93, 94 (1970): ... The general rule is that risks of travel to and from work are not ... ...
-
Barker, Matter of
...157-58, 595 P.2d at 306-07 (emphasis added).3 The general rule as stated by the Michigan court was one borrowed from DeVoe v. New York State Rys., 218 N.Y. 318, 113 N.E. 256, L.R.A. 1917A 250:The employee is not insured generally against accident while working for the street railway corpora......
-
Lamm v. Silver Falls Timber Co.
... ... Miles ... H. McKey, Asst. Atty. Gen. (I. H. Van-Winkle, Atty. Gen., on ... the brief), for State Industrial Accident Commission ... [133 ... Or. 486] ROSSMAN, J ... Our ... previous opinion, we believe, ... bath. The facts were that he was supervising the construction ... of a part of the subway of New York City. In connection with ... his work, he became so dirty and covered with filth that he ... felt it necessary to take a bath before he ... ...
-
Lemon v. New York City Transit Authority
... ... Seneca Steel Serv., 41 N.Y.2d 140, 142, 391 N.Y.S.2d 78, 359 N.E.2d 673; Matter of Bennett v. Marine Works, 273 N.Y. 429, 431, 7 N.E.2d 847; Matter of De Voe v. New York State Rys., 218 N.Y. 318, 320, 113 N.E. 256; Matter of Leatham v. Thurston & Braidich, 264 App.Div. 449, 35 N.Y.S.2d 887, affd. 289 N.Y. 804, 47 N.E.2d 51; Matter of Torio v. Fisher Body Div., 119 A.D.2d 955, 956, 501 N.Y.S.2d 485; Matter of Thompson v. New York Tel. Co., 114 A.D.2d 639, 494 ... ...