Claim of Baird v. Barclay Park Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Baird v. Barclay Park Corp.

243 A.D. 841

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 243 A.D. 841 (Claim of Baird v. Barclay Park Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Baird v. Barclay Park Corp., 243 A.D. 841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

[842]*842— Dependency of mother is established. Her son was killed by falling down an elevator shaft in a hotel. The shaft into which he fell was adjacent to the one in which he operated a ear. He opened it by mistake. The question involved is, did the son abandon his employment by leaving the elevator he was operating to deliver a letter to a guest of the hotel? There is proof of a general rule that elevator operators should not leave their cars, but this rule was violated frequently and notoriously; its violation several times was directed by the immediate superior of the operator. Award for death benefits has been made. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Heffernan, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[842]*842— Dependency of mother is established. Her son was killed by falling down an elevator shaft in a hotel. The shaft into which he fell was adjacent to the one in which he operated a ear. He opened it by mistake. The question involved is, did the son abandon his employment by leaving the elevator he was operating to deliver a letter to a guest of the hotel? There is proof of a general rule that elevator operators should not leave their cars, but this rule was violated frequently and notoriously; its violation several times was directed by the immediate superior of the operator. Award for death benefits has been made. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-baird-v-barclay-park-corp-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack