Claim of Clawson v. Cleghorn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Clawson v. Cleghorn

264 A.D. 965, 37 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5562

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 965 (Claim of Clawson v. Cleghorn) 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 Clawson v. Cleghorn, 264 A.D. 965, 37 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant was employed as owner and driver of a truck by the employer, respondent, then engaged in the business of bridge and road construction. While repairing a hoist on his dump truck, some part of the hoisting apparatus broke, causing the body of the truck to fall on claimant, as the result of which he suffered injuries and for which claim for compensation is made. The State Industrial Board found that all repairs to the truck were to be made on the time of the employee at his expense and that he was not to be paid for his personal services unless he was actually employed, in which case he was to be paid by the hour. There is substantial evidence to support the findings and decision of the State Industrial Board that the accident and the resultant injuries did not arise out of and in the course of claimant’s employment, and the decision should be affirmed. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Heffernan, Sehenck and Foster, JJ.

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

Claimant was employed as owner and driver of a truck by the employer, respondent, then engaged in the business of bridge and road construction. While repairing a hoist on his dump truck, some part of the hoisting apparatus broke, causing the body of the truck to fall on claimant, as the result of which he suffered injuries and for which claim for compensation is made. The State Industrial Board found that all repairs to the truck were to be made on the time of the employee at his expense and that he was not to be paid for his personal services unless he was actually employed, in which case he was to be paid by the hour. There is substantial evidence to support the findings and decision of the State Industrial Board that the accident and the resultant injuries did not arise out of and in the course of claimant’s employment, and the decision should be affirmed. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Heffernan, Sehenck and Foster, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 965, 37 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-clawson-v-cleghorn-nyappdiv-1942.