Matter of Assman v. Long Island Railroad Company

2 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Christo v. New York Central Rd. Co.

    274 App. Div. 1012 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)

    However, in view of the broad and far-reaching language used in the amendment I find it impossible to escape the conclusion that the intent was to sweep away all refined judicial distinctions theretofore used to determine what constituted such employment, including the so-called "dead engine rule". The apparent intent was to include any employee who performs services in connection with any instrumentality essential to interstate commerce ( Edwards v. Baltimore Ohio R.R. Co., 131 F.2d 366; Bretsky v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co., 156 F.2d 594; Shelton v. Thomson, 148 F.2d 1; Ermin v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 36 F. Supp. 936; Matter of Assman v. Long Island R.R. Co., 269 App. Div. 871). This would include all shop employees, any part of whose duties has to do, directly or indirectly, with the servicing of locomotives used in interstate transportation, regardless of immobility or the time taken for repairs. These views impel me to the conclusion that the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board in each case wherein it was held that no part of claimant's employment was in the furtherance of interstate commerce was erroneous as a matter of law.

  2. Matter of Baird v. New York Central R.R. Co.

    274 App. Div. 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)

    This is a far cry from the holding urged here, that every employee, even though his duties may be entirely foreign to our established conception of interstate commerce, is to be deprived of the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Law. Matter of Assman v. Long Island R.R. Co. ( 269 App. Div. 871) does not hold contrary to this view. Although the language of that decision would seem to support the appellant's position, a study of the record indicates that the issue with which we are presently concerned, was not litigated, it being conceded by the claimant that if disability did not occur until subsequent to August 11, 1939, the effective date of the amendment, he was not entitled to compensation.