Claim of Miles v. Gibbs & Hill, Inc.

225 A.D. 839
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1929·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

— Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Davis, Whitmyer and Hill, JJ., concur; Van Kirk, P. J., and Hinman, J., dissent, on the ground that the act of claimant in striking the torpedo with his hammer, as he walked along the tracks, was not dictated or suggested by his employment or his employer’s interests, since he was not in the employ of the railway, but was a mere sportive act on his part which alone was responsible for his injury which did not arise out of his employment. (Frost v. Franklin Mfg. Co., 204 App. Div. 700; affd., 236 N. T. 649.)

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

Claim of Miles v. Gibbs & Hill, Inc., 225 A.D. 839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

225 A.D. 839 (Claim of Miles v. Gibbs & Hill, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Claim of Lubrano v. Malinet
65 N.Y. 616 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Claim of Bletter v. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
30 A.D.2d 601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1968)
Shapaka v. State Compensation Commissioner
119 S.E.2d 821 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1961)
Ransom v. HG Hill Company
326 S.W.2d 659 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1959)
Claim of Johnson v. Loew's, Inc.
7 A.D.2d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
Secor v. Penn Service Garage
113 A.2d 177 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
Matter of Ognibene v. Rochester Manufacturing Co.
80 N.E.2d 749 (New York Court of Appeals, 1948)