Home/New York Court of Appeals/Claim of De Voe v. New York State Railways

Claim of De Voe v. New York State Railways

113 N.E. 256, 218 N.Y. 318, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1074
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 6, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by58 cases

This text of 113 N.E. 256 (Claim of De Voe v. New York State Railways) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Claim of De Voe v. New York State Railways, 113 N.E. 256, 218 N.Y. 318, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1074 (N.Y. 1916).

Opinion

Pound, J.

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 auto *320 mobile running 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 employees 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 employees were not paid for the time which they consumed in the period of testing their watches, dr 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 employee arising out of and in the course of his employment.” (W. C. L. § 10, Cons. Laws, ch. 67.) The employee 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 employee 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 or his place of work that is not a risk of his occupation but of life generally. • Deceased was not employed to have his watch regulated and therefore was not injured while doing a duty that he was employed to perform. He was not injured while on duty nor' in his working hours nor on his way to or from his duty within the precincts of the company.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs against the industrial commission.

Hiscock, Chase, Cuddeback, Hogan and Oakdozo, JJ., concur; Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., dissents.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Claim of Fine v. S.M.C. Microsystems Corp.
147 A.D.2d 749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Lemon v. NYC TR. AUTH.
72 N.Y.2d 324 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)
Claim of Lemon v. New York City Transit Authority
528 N.E.2d 1205 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)
Claim of Weimer v. Wei-Munch Ltd.
117 A.D.2d 846 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Barker v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc.
719 P.2d 1131 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1986)
Matter of Barker
719 P.2d 1131 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1986)
Claim of Bennett v. G. O. Dairies, Inc.
114 A.D.2d 574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Claim of Weinstein v. 16 East 58th Street Corp.
92 A.D.2d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Claim of Junium v. A. L. Bazzini Co.
86 A.D.2d 690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Neff v. Tek Bearing Co.
64 A.D.2d 740 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Claim of Husted v. Seneca Steel Service, Inc.
50 A.D.2d 76 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
Love v. N. Y. S. Craig School
312 N.E.2d 476 (New York Court of Appeals, 1974)
Ricciardi v. Aniero Concrete Co.
312 A.2d 139 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1973)
Claim of Devito v. Imbriano
39 A.D.2d 796 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1972)
Capozzi v. United States
326 F. Supp. 784 (E.D. New York, 1971)
Claim of Costa v. New York State Workmen's Compensation Board
34 A.D.2d 585 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1970)
Claim of Borders v. E. H. Scull Co.
33 A.D.2d 870 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1969)
Claim of Shafran v. Board of Education, Central School District No. 1
25 A.D.2d 336 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
Claim of Mahar v. Hills Baking Co.
22 A.D.2d 983 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)
Claim of Trent v. Collins Tuttle & Co.
20 A.D.2d 948 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 N.E. 256, 218 N.Y. 318, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-de-voe-v-new-york-state-railways-ny-1916.