From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Clapham v. David

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 13, 1931
232 App. Div. 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)

Opinion

May 13, 1931.

Appeal from State Industrial Board.

Ireland, Caverly Hendrickson [ William S. Pendleton of counsel], for the appellants.

John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General [ E.C. Aiken, Assistant Attorney-General, of counsel], for the respondents.


Whether or not the accident for which the award was made arose out of and in the course of claimant's employment is the only question.

The employer conducted a household and claimant was in her employ as a nurse, having the care of her daughter, five years old. On December 29, 1929, in Bermuda, claimant was injured in a fall from her employer's bicycle, while she was riding it, about one-quarter of a mile from the place where they were boarding. In her report the employer stated that claimant was "injured in regular occupation" and "fell from bicycle against stone wall, dislocating shoulder and fracturing bone, injuring main motor nerve of arm." On the hearing she testified that claimant "had regular physical care of the child all day long" and "had no time off because we were on a holiday — not from 7 to 7, but absolutely twenty-four hours a day." She remained in the course of her employment. ( Matter of Norris v. N.Y.C.R.R. Co., 246 N.Y. 307; Matter of Fuller v. Title Guarantee Trust Co., 223 App. Div. 173.)

In addition, there is evidence that the child "had been extremely obstreperous" on that day and had made all, including claimant, nervous and irritable, so that her employer "definitely urged" her "to get away for a while," "sending her out, to get her in a little better frame of mind." ( Matter of Redner v. Faber Son, 223 N.Y. 379, 381; Scanlon v. Herald Co., 201 App. Div. 173, 174.)

There was some evidence that claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment.

I think that the award should be affirmed.

All concur.

Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board.


Summaries of

Matter of Clapham v. David

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 13, 1931
232 App. Div. 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)
Case details for

Matter of Clapham v. David

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of ETHEL CLAPHAM, Respondent, against Mrs…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 13, 1931

Citations

232 App. Div. 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)
251 N.Y.S. 245

Citing Cases

Piazza v. Prince's Farm

Larson, op. cit., § 24.23, p. 378. Cf. Robinson v. Levy, 20 N.J. Misc. 444, 28 A.2d 651 ( W.C.B. 1942);…

Matter of Smith v. Parkchester General Hospital

She was employed by the Parkchester General Hospital. The question at issue is whether the accident arose out…