From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Karl v. Fair Shoe Repair, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 16, 1945
269 App. Div. 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 1945)

Opinion

May 16, 1945.


This is an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from an award in favor of claimant. The claimant was employed as a sign carrier by the employer which operated a shoe repair and tailoring business in a store located in the city of New York. Claimant's duties consisted of walking on the public sidewalk in the vicinity of the employer's store with a heavy overhead display sign strapped on his back advertising his employer's business. It was the custom of claimant, with the consent of his employer, to go for coffee each morning. In doing this he carried the employer's sign to an open-air restaurant directly across the street. On April 29, 1943, while on the sidewalk in front of his employer's premises and while about to go to the restaurant, he slipped and sustained the injuries in question. The sole question presented is whether the injuries suffered by claimant arose out of and in the course of his employment. The State Industrial Board found the claimant was in the course of his employment. The evidence sustains the award. Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. All concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Karl v. Fair Shoe Repair, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 16, 1945
269 App. Div. 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 1945)
Case details for

Matter of Karl v. Fair Shoe Repair, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of AMANDUS KARL, Respondent, against FAIR SHOE…

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

Date published: May 16, 1945

Citations

269 App. Div. 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 1945)

Citing Cases

Tinsman Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Sparks

Such is the text in Corpus Juris and the holdings in the cases discussed above, and we think such holdings…

Matter of Rucker v. Nassau-Beekman Realty Corp.

We cannot say that, when injured, claimant was so separated from his employment that his accident did not…