Doyle v. Jennings

New York Court of Appeals

Doyle v. Jennings

258 N.E.2d 924, 26 N.Y.2d 957, 310 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1416

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 9, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 258 N.E.2d 924 (Doyle v. Jennings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doyle v. Jennings, 258 N.E.2d 924, 26 N.Y.2d 957, 310 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1416 (N.Y. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. At the end of his day’s work, plaintiff went to his employer’s parking lot and entered the car of a coemployee who was to drive him home; and was thus within the precincts of the employment and exposed to its hazards when injured in the collision of automobiles operated by his coemployees. (Roberts v. Gagnon, 1 A D 2d 297.) The fact that a concurring purpose of the homeward trip was to enable the driver Jennings to pick up an appliance motor which plaintiff had given him does not affect compensability. (Matter of Moskowitz v. Granata, 9 A D 2d 310, mot. for lv. to app. den. 8 N Y 2d 705.) Thus, plaintiff’s sole remedy is under the Workmen’s Compensation Law; and it is equally apparent that defendant coemployees were at all times within the course of the employment and entitled to the protection of the statute as against the consequences of the acts arising out of the employment.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur; Judge Burke taking no part.

Order affirmed, in a memorandum.

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

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. At the end of his day’s work, plaintiff went to his employer’s parking lot and entered the car of a coemployee who was to drive him home; and was thus within the precincts of the employment and exposed to its hazards when injured in the collision of automobiles operated by his coemployees. (Roberts v. Gagnon, 1 A D 2d 297.) The fact that a concurring purpose of the homeward trip was to enable the driver Jennings to pick up an appliance motor which plaintiff had given him does not affect compensability. (Matter of Moskowitz v. Granata, 9 A D 2d 310, mot. for lv. to app. den. 8 N Y 2d 705.) Thus, plaintiff’s sole remedy is under the Workmen’s Compensation Law; and it is equally apparent that defendant coemployees were at all times within the course of the employment and entitled to the protection of the statute as against the consequences of the acts arising out of the employment.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur; Judge Burke taking no part.

Order affirmed, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 N.E.2d 924, 26 N.Y.2d 957, 310 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-jennings-ny-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack