Matter of Pestlin v. Haxton Canning Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Pestlin v. Haxton Canning Co.

87 N.E.2d 522, 299 N.Y. 477, 1949 N.Y. LEXIS 959

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 19, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 87 N.E.2d 522 (Matter of Pestlin v. Haxton Canning Co.) 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

Matter of Pestlin v. Haxton Canning Co., 87 N.E.2d 522, 299 N.Y. 477, 1949 N.Y. LEXIS 959 (N.Y. 1949).

Pincite

Opinions

Desmond, J.

From the time of its original enactment (see L. 1913, ch. 816) the New York Workmen’s Compensation Law has expressly excluded from its coverage: “ farm laborers ” (present § 2, subd. 4). None of the hundreds of amendments passed by the Legislature to extend the coverage and increase the benefits of the act, have in any way affected that exclusion. It is, therefore, beyond the power of the board or the court to grant or affirm an award to one injured when working as a farm laborer.

This injured claimant lived across the street from the farm where he was hurt. He had previously worked as a farm hand on this same farm. The day before this accident he was, as he and the farmer both testified, hired to do farm work on this farm. When injured, his work was driving a tractor which was operating, on the farm, a machine which removed beet tops from beets which had been pulled, and stacked on the ground; his arm was severed when caught and dragged into the topping machine. *480 That such work was farm labor seems to me to be obvious, and it was farm labor whether claimant was working for the farmer Totten or for Haxton Canning Company, Inc., for whose ultimate use in its cannery the beets were grown.

Since the only question here is as to whether claimant was, Avhen injured, Avorking as a “ farm laborer ”, it is immaterial Avhether the arrangement betAveen the owner of the farm and the farmer was a lease, a joint venture, or one for work and labor, and likewise immaterial whether, as between the owner and the farmer, Taylor v. Bradley (39 N. Y. 129) applies.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Desmond, J.

From the time of its original enactment (see L. 1913, ch. 816) the New York Workmen’s Compensation Law has expressly excluded from its coverage: “ farm laborers ” (present § 2, subd. 4). None of the hundreds of amendments passed by the Legislature to extend the coverage and increase the benefits of the act, have in any way affected that exclusion. It is, therefore, beyond the power of the board or the court to grant or affirm an award to one injured when working as a farm laborer.

This injured claimant lived across the street from the farm where he was hurt. He had previously worked as a farm hand on this same farm. The day before this accident he was, as he and the farmer both testified, hired to do farm work on this farm. When injured, his work was driving a tractor which was operating, on the farm, a machine which removed beet tops from beets which had been pulled, and stacked on the ground; his arm was severed when caught and dragged into the topping machine. *480 That such work was farm labor seems to me to be obvious, and it was farm labor whether claimant was working for the farmer Totten or for Haxton Canning Company, Inc., for whose ultimate use in its cannery the beets were grown.

Since the only question here is as to whether claimant was, Avhen injured, Avorking as a “ farm laborer ”, it is immaterial Avhether the arrangement betAveen the owner of the farm and the farmer was a lease, a joint venture, or one for work and labor, and likewise immaterial whether, as between the owner and the farmer, Taylor v. Bradley (39 N. Y. 129) applies.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 N.E.2d 522, 299 N.Y. 477, 1949 N.Y. LEXIS 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-pestlin-v-haxton-canning-co-ny-1949.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack