Claim of Masse v. James H. Robinson Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Masse v. James H. Robinson Co.

275 A.D.2d 976

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

DecidedJune 28, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 976 (Claim of Masse v. James H. Robinson Co.) 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 Masse v. James H. Robinson Co., 275 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Brewster, Deyo and Santry, JJ., concur; Foster, P. J., dissents in the following memorandum in which Heffernan, J., concurs: I dissent. There was evidence from which the board could find a series of unusual strains, or undue exertions, during the week preceding the fatal heart attack; and there is medical testimony of causal relation. If we are to reverse, as I see it, we may say as a matter of law that a series of strains cannot constitute an accident. I think this is drawing the line too fine, and such reasoning would logically lead to the conclusion that undue exertion in the morning would not sustain a finding of accidental injury if the heart attack happened in the afternoon. It seems to me the time element belongs in the realm of fact into which we are not permitted to intrude.

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

Brewster, Deyo and Santry, JJ., concur; Foster, P. J., dissents in the following memorandum in which Heffernan, J., concurs: I dissent. There was evidence from which the board could find a series of unusual strains, or undue exertions, during the week preceding the fatal heart attack; and there is medical testimony of causal relation. If we are to reverse, as I see it, we may say as a matter of law that a series of strains cannot constitute an accident. I think this is drawing the line too fine, and such reasoning would logically lead to the conclusion that undue exertion in the morning would not sustain a finding of accidental injury if the heart attack happened in the afternoon. It seems to me the time element belongs in the realm of fact into which we are not permitted to intrude.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-masse-v-james-h-robinson-co-nyappdiv-1949.