Claim of Santacroce v. Sag Harbor Brick Works

182 A.D. 442, 169 N.Y.S. 695, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7881
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 6, 1918
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 182 A.D. 442 (Claim of Santacroce v. Sag Harbor Brick Works) 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 Santacroce v. Sag Harbor Brick Works, 182 A.D. 442, 169 N.Y.S. 695, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1918).

Opinion

John M. Kellogg, P. J.:

The claimant, a brickmaker, was required to perform his duties while standing on a pile of brick about fifteen feet above the ground. He was seized “ with an attack of vertigo, or with some similar disorder, which caused him to fall to the frozen ground.” It is urged that his injury was the result of the vertigo and not of an accident, but the findings and proceedings indicate that he was in good health at the time and no reason is given for the fall except the dizziness. The natural inference is that the dizziness, the fall and the injury resulted from the elevated position in which he was standing while performing his work.

[443]*443' Appellants rely, apparently with confidence, upon Matter of Collins v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co. (171 App. Div. 381). In that case the superintendent, who was standing upon the street, fell to the ground and received his injury. There was no apparent cause for the fall aside from an attack of cardiac syncope to which the previous condition of his heart predisposed him. Here the fainting and the fall were caused by the conditions under which the man was working.

We conclude the award should be affirmed.

Award unanimously affirmed.

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

Related

James Irby v. Republic Creosoting Company
228 F.2d 195 (Fifth Circuit, 1955)
Riley v. Oxford Paper Co.
103 A.2d 111 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1954)
A. C. Lawrence Leather Co. v. Barnhill
61 S.W.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1933)
Claim of Mausert v. Albany Builders Supply Co.
223 A.D. 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1928)
Claim of Joseph v. United Kimono Co.
194 A.D. 568 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1921)
Claim of Neuberger v. Third Avenue Railway Co.
192 A.D. 781 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 A.D. 442, 169 N.Y.S. 695, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-santacroce-v-sag-harbor-brick-works-nyappdiv-1918.