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

Claim of Gaik v. National Aniline Division

5 A.D.2d 1039

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1958-04-28
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • fall on sidewalk outside of plant compensable when employee was coming from employer-owned parking lot located two blocks away
  • the employee was injured on a sidewalk while walking from the employer’s building to a parking lot
  • employee injured while walking to employer-owned parking lot two blocks from employer’s premises
  • Employee fell on sidewalk outside of the plant and the court held the injury was compensable when the employee was coming from employer-owned parking lot located two blocks away.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Claim of Gaik v. National Aniline Division. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
11 opinions
MATTER OF GAIK v. NATIONAL ANILINE DIVISION,5 A.D.2d 1039[3d Dept 1958]
In the Matter of the Claim of LEO GAIK, Respondent, against NATIONAL ANILINE
DIVISION et al., Appellants.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.
April 28, 1958
Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen's Compensation Board. Claimant was employed as a chemical press operator in a chemical plant in Buffalo. A parking lot was provided as part of the facilities furnished claimant by the employer in connection with the employment. This was separated from the plant where claimant worked by intervening public streets and was about two blocks away. On February 5, 1955 after claimant left the plant building on his way to the employer's parking lot, and was walking on the public sidewalk in front of the plant building, he slipped and fell on some broken glass which had fallen from a window of the plant on the sidewalk. An award of compensation has been made; and the employer and its carrier appeal on the ground claimant's fall did not arise out of and in the course of employment because he had completed his work, left the employer's premises and was on the public street when the accident occurred. We are of opinion, however, the board was right in holding that the employment continued until the claimant had used the employer's facility provided for the purpose of aiding his transportation to and from employment. The case should be governed by principles that would apply, for example, if the employer had provided a cloakroom or a rest room or similar facility on the other side of the public walk and the employee was injured getting there. We have heretofore held that an employee injured while physically on such a parking lot is within his employment (Matter of Kwapichv.Aluminum Co. of America,282 App. Div. 972). It would seem to follow that he would be similarly in the course of employment getting to the lot. Cases where public sidewalk injuries have not been held compensable involve situations in which the employee is deemed to have detached himself from the employment or not yet to have attached himself to it when injured on the public street.Matter ofAmentov.Bond Stores(274 App. Div. 863) andMatter ofPomakoyv.American Locomotive Co.(277 App. Div. 823) are examples. The decision inMatter of Milbergv.Behr-ManningCorp.(274 App. Div. 862) has some superficial resemblance to the case before us because claimant was going back to perform a forgotten duty for employer after she had left the premises; but it is distinguishable in the circumstances that her forgetting and turning in the public street to go back was not the result of any act or provision of facility by the employer. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board.
Present — Foster, P.J., Bergan, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.