From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MATTER OF LIEF v. A. WALZER SON

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 1, 1936
248 App. Div. 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

Summary

In Matter of Lief v. Walzer Son (248 App. Div. 651; affd., 272 N.Y. 542) a traveling salesman on a train sustained an injury when the train jolted, causing the bristles of the brush with which he was brushing his eyebrows to enter his eye; held compensable as arising out of and in the course of his employment, since the injury was caused not by the personal act of brushing the eyebrows but by the jolt of the train which was a risk growing out of his employment.

Summary of this case from Matter of Lepow v. Lepow Knitting Mills, Inc.

Opinion

May, 1936.


This is an appeal by the employer and the insurance carrier from an award in favor of the claimant. The sole point involved is the contention of the appellants that claimant's injury was due to an act which was entirely personal to himself and did not arise out of and in the course of the employment. The claimant was a salesman, and had taken a train from Dallas, Tex., to Kansas City, which was the next stop in the course of his employment. He entered a train fifty minutes before leaving time, and decided to shave. As he shaved, washed and combed his hair he had the habit of brushing up his eyebrows, and as he did so the train jolted, and the bristles of his brush entered his eye, causing the injury in question. While claimant was performing a personal act, the injury was caused not by such act but by the jolt of the train, which was a risk growing out of his employment. Such risk is not ordinarily present in a hotel or home. The claimant was actually traveling on the business of his employer at the time of the accident. The risk was one incidental and peculiar to that mode of travel and the circumstances in which he was then serving his master. Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Rhodes, McNamee and Bliss, JJ., concur; Hill, P.J., and Crapser, J., dissent on the ground that claimant's injury was due to an act which was entirely personal to himself and did not arise out of and in the course of the employment, on the authority of Matter of Pisko v. Mintz ( 262 N.Y. 176, 179); Matter of Davidson v. Pansy Waist Co. (240 id. 584).


Summaries of

MATTER OF LIEF v. A. WALZER SON

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 1, 1936
248 App. Div. 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

In Matter of Lief v. Walzer Son (248 App. Div. 651; affd., 272 N.Y. 542) a traveling salesman on a train sustained an injury when the train jolted, causing the bristles of the brush with which he was brushing his eyebrows to enter his eye; held compensable as arising out of and in the course of his employment, since the injury was caused not by the personal act of brushing the eyebrows but by the jolt of the train which was a risk growing out of his employment.

Summary of this case from Matter of Lepow v. Lepow Knitting Mills, Inc.
Case details for

MATTER OF LIEF v. A. WALZER SON

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of HARRY H. LIEF, Respondent, against A. WALZER…

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

Date published: May 1, 1936

Citations

248 App. Div. 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

Citing Cases

Matter of Lepow v. Lepow Knitting Mills, Inc.

Further than that there is no evidence in the record as to whether he was to be continuously in the employ of…

Snyder v. General Paper Corp.

While there are no cases identical with the situation here, by parity of reasoning compensation should be…