Claim of Woodruff v. Erie Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Woodruff v. Erie Railroad

243 A.D. 839

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D. 839 (Claim of Woodruff v. Erie Railroad) 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 Woodruff v. Erie Railroad, 243 A.D. 839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

[840]*840Appeal from award for temporary total disability. Claimant, to some extent intoxicated, came to work late, engaged in an argument with his foreman, was discharged and then had a fist fight with the foreman. He filed an election under section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law to pursue “ his remedy against a third party, to wit: Charles Swartz [the foreman] and Erie Railroad Company [the employer],” and brought action against both his employer and the foreman for injuries received in the fight, claiming an assault. The defense was that the plaintiff was the aggressor and intoxicated. Upon a jury verdict of no cause of action a judgment of dismissal upon the merits was entered. Claimant then asked to have his claim for compensation reopened and an award has been made to him. Award reversed in the interest of justice and claim dismissed, with costs against the Industrial Board. Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ., concur.

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

[840]*840Appeal from award for temporary total disability. Claimant, to some extent intoxicated, came to work late, engaged in an argument with his foreman, was discharged and then had a fist fight with the foreman. He filed an election under section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law to pursue “ his remedy against a third party, to wit: Charles Swartz [the foreman] and Erie Railroad Company [the employer],” and brought action against both his employer and the foreman for injuries received in the fight, claiming an assault. The defense was that the plaintiff was the aggressor and intoxicated. Upon a jury verdict of no cause of action a judgment of dismissal upon the merits was entered. Claimant then asked to have his claim for compensation reopened and an award has been made to him. Award reversed in the interest of justice and claim dismissed, with costs against the Industrial Board. Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-woodruff-v-erie-railroad-nyappdiv-1935.