Claim of Torrence v. Ringling Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Torrence v. Ringling Bros.

272 A.D.2d 986

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

DecidedSeptember 17, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 986 (Claim of Torrence v. Ringling Bros.) 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 Torrence v. Ringling Bros., 272 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal by employer and its insurance [987]*987carrier from an award in favor of various special funds and for funeral expenses in connection with the death of Victoria Torrence. The employer was engaged in the circus and show business and the decedent and her husband worked for it. They performed together in the employer’s circus as entertainers in an aerial act. On May 6, 1945, while performing her act at Madison Square Garden, the wife fell a distance of about fifty feet and sustained accidental injuries which resulted in her death the same day. She left no person surviving entitled to compensation within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether the decedent was an employee or an independent contractor. The board found that she was an employee and the evidence sustains that finding. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All concur. [See post, p. 1083.]

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

This is an appeal by employer and its insurance [987]*987carrier from an award in favor of various special funds and for funeral expenses in connection with the death of Victoria Torrence. The employer was engaged in the circus and show business and the decedent and her husband worked for it. They performed together in the employer’s circus as entertainers in an aerial act. On May 6, 1945, while performing her act at Madison Square Garden, the wife fell a distance of about fifty feet and sustained accidental injuries which resulted in her death the same day. She left no person surviving entitled to compensation within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether the decedent was an employee or an independent contractor. The board found that she was an employee and the evidence sustains that finding. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All concur. [See post, p. 1083.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-torrence-v-ringling-bros-nyappdiv-1947.