Schwindt v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwindt v. Thompson

249 A.D. 639, 291 N.Y.S. 81, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5341

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 249 A.D. 639 (Schwindt v. Thompson) 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

Schwindt v. Thompson, 249 A.D. 639, 291 N.Y.S. 81, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff’s intestate, while crossing the street, was struck and killed by an automobile owned and operated by defendant Thompson. Thompson was employed by defendant Singer Sewing Machine Company as a closer, or salesman, under a contract by which he was to furnish his own automobile and the company was to pay for the expenses incurred in its operation. The accident occurred when Thompson was on his way home from the company’s branch office. In our opinion there was sufficient evidence to warrant the court in submitting to the jury the question whether or not Thompson was in the course of his employment at the time the accident occurred. Judgment for plaintiff unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present —■ Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ.

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

Plaintiff’s intestate, while crossing the street, was struck and killed by an automobile owned and operated by defendant Thompson. Thompson was employed by defendant Singer Sewing Machine Company as a closer, or salesman, under a contract by which he was to furnish his own automobile and the company was to pay for the expenses incurred in its operation. The accident occurred when Thompson was on his way home from the company’s branch office. In our opinion there was sufficient evidence to warrant the court in submitting to the jury the question whether or not Thompson was in the course of his employment at the time the accident occurred. Judgment for plaintiff unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present —■ Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 639, 291 N.Y.S. 81, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwindt-v-thompson-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack