Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Claim of Spang v. Broadway Brewing & Malting Co.

Claim of Spang v. Broadway Brewing & Malting Co., 169 N.Y.S. 574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 1918)

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1918-03-06
Topic
employee-benefits-and-executive-compensation

Cochrane, J.: The employer 'was a manufacturer of malt liquors, which business is classified as hazardous within group 27 of section 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 67 [Laws of 1914, chap. 41], as amd. by Laws of 1917, chap. 705). Charles Spang, the employee, was a collector and while in the performance of his duties as such collector on July 5, 1917, in a saloon away from the plant of his employer he was shot and killed. The shooting was intentional and the purpose thereof was to secure the money which Spang had on his person belonging to his employer. Under subdivision 4 of section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, as amended by chapter 622 of the Laws of 1916 and chapter 705 of the Laws of 1917, Spang at the time of his death was within the protection of the act.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Claim of Spang v. Broadway Brewing & Malting Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
12 opinions
SPANGv. BROADWAY BREWING MALTING CO.,182 App. Div. 443(1918)
169 N.Y.S. 574
Before STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Respondent.
In the Matter of the Claim of ANNA SPANG, Respondent, for Compensation to
Herself and Child under the Workmen's Compensation Law, for the Death of
Her Husband, CHARLES SPANG, against BROADWAY BREWING AND MALTING COMPANY,
Employer, and CENTRAL AND WESTERN NEW YORK BREWERS AND MALTSTERS MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurance Carrier, Appellants.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.
March 6, 1918.
Page 444
Clement Lee[H. Walter Leeof counsel], for the appellants.Merton E. Lewis, Attorney-General[E.C. Aiken, DeputyAttorney-General, of counsel], for the respondents.
COCHRANE, J.:
The employer was a manufacturer of malt liquors, which business is classified as hazardous within group 27 of section2of the Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 67 [Laws of 1914, chap. 41], as amd. by Laws of 1917, chap. 705). Charles Spang, the employee, was a collector and while in the performance of his duties as such collector on July 5, 1917, in a saloon away from the plant of his employer he was shot and killed. The shooting was intentional and the purpose thereof was to secure the money which Spang had on his person belonging to his employer.

Under subdivision 4 of section3of the Workmen's Compensation Law, as amended by chapter 622 of the Laws of 1916 and chapter 705 of the Laws of 1917, Spang at the time of his death was within the protection of the act. The amendment of 1916 was intended to include an employee "in the service of an employer carrying on a hazardous employment, even though such employee is not actually engaged in a hazardous employment." (Matter ofDosev.Moehle Lithographic Co.,221 N.Y. 401.) And by the plain language of the statute it is immaterial whether the shooting of Spang occurred at the plant of the employer "or in the course of his employment away from the plant." He was clearly "in the course of his employment" at the time of his injury.

The fact that the death of Spang was intentionally caused does not defeat the claim. He was killed as an incident of his employment because he had in his possession money belonging to his employer, which it was the purpose of his slayer toPage 445feloniously appropriate. An injury caused deliberately and willfully by a third party may be an "accidental injury" within the meaning of the act from the viewpoint of the employer and employee. (Workmen's Compensation Law, §29, as amd. by Laws of 1917, chap. 705;Hellmanv.Manning Sand Paper Co.,176 App. Div. 127; affd.,221 N.Y. 492;Matter of Carbonev.Loft, 219 id. 579;Dietzv.Solomonwitz,179 App. Div. 560;Yumev.Knickerbocker Portland Cement Co., 3 State Dept. Rep. 353; affd.,169 App. Div. 905;Slanev.Cording Salzman, 11 State Dept. Rep. 631; affd.,179 App. Div. 952;Griffinv.Roberson Son, 176 id. 6;Matter of Heitzv.Ruppert,218 N.Y. 148.)

The award should be affirmed.

Award unanimously affirmed.