Claim of White v. Loades

178 A.D. 236, 164 N.Y.S. 1023, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5842
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 2, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 178 A.D. 236 (Claim of White v. Loades) 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 White v. Loades, 178 A.D. 236, 164 N.Y.S. 1023, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

Kellogg, P. J.:

The employer was carrying on the business of operating a steam machine for the threshing of grain and beans. The machine was moved from place to place for custom work. The claimant was a day laborer employed in working and moving said machine. When moving it from one place to another, while putting the separator in the barn, a wheel struck some obstruction, throwing the wagon tongue around, striking the claimant on his right knee, causing his injury. We think the case comes within group 41 of section 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 67; Laws [237]*237of 1914, chap. 41), the operation of a vehicle. (Matter of Costello v. Taylor, 217 N. Y. 179.)

By subdivision 4 of section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, farm laborers and domestics are not within the protection of the act; but a man who is traveling through the country with a machine, and stopping from place to place to thresh out the grain and beans of the farmers for a compensation, is not engaged in farming, and his employees are not farm laborers. He was running a threshing machine, and while that was not declared a hazardous business, the fact that the machine went from place to place like a wagon or vehicle, and upon wheels, brought it within the group stated, and the injury that came to the claimant arose from the operation of a wagon or vehicle — that is while putting it in the barn.

We answer the question in the affirmative — that the claimant was engaged in a hazardous employment at the time he received his injury.

All concurred.

Question certified answered in the affirmative.

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

Related

Dost v. Pevely Dairy Company
273 S.W.2d 242 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1954)
Matter of Pestlin v. Haxton Canning Co.
87 N.E.2d 522 (New York Court of Appeals, 1949)
Peterson v. King County
90 P.2d 729 (Washington Supreme Court, 1939)
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Dobbs
100 S.W.2d 349 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1937)
Lowe v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
264 N.W. 837 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1936)
Sant v. Continental Life Insurance
291 P. 1072 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1930)
Roush v. Heffelbower
196 N.W. 185 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1923)
Cook v. Massey
220 P. 1088 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1923)
Oliphant v. Hawkinson
192 Iowa 1259 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1921)
Jones v. Industrial Commission
187 P. 833 (Utah Supreme Court, 1920)
Miller & Lux Inc. v. Industrial Acc. Com.
178 P. 960 (California Supreme Court, 1919)
Claim of Vincent v. Taylor Bros.
180 A.D. 818 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)
In re Boyer
117 N.E. 507 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 A.D. 236, 164 N.Y.S. 1023, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-white-v-loades-nyappdiv-1917.