From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Davis v. Ryan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 24, 1941
262 App. Div. 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941)

Opinion

September 24, 1941.

Appeal from State Industrial Board.


The claimant-respondent was employed on a dairy farm operated by the employer-appellant. He performed duties usual to a farm hand and was not required at any time to leave the farm or perform any duties outside of the limits of the farm. He testified that his sole occupation was that of a farm hand and that he had never been employed at any other work. On March 16, 1938, while operating a buzz saw on the farm for the purpose of cutting fire wood, he was injured. The Industrial Board found that the employer's major business was the operation of a milk pasteurizing and bottling plant in the city of Utica and that the claimant's work was incidental to such business. There is nothing in the evidence to sustain such finding. Claimant was employed to do general farm work and was at all times a farm laborer. He performed no duties in connection with the pasteurizing and bottling plant but his time was devoted exclusively to farm labor on the farm where he lived. The cutting of wood for kindling did not alter his status. The award should be reversed and the claim dismissed, with costs against the State Industrial Board. Award reversed and claim dismissed, with costs against the State Industrial Board. Hill, P.J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Schenck, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Davis v. Ryan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 24, 1941
262 App. Div. 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941)
Case details for

Matter of Davis v. Ryan

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of EDMUND DAVIS, Respondent, against RAYMOND B…

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

Date published: Sep 24, 1941

Citations

262 App. Div. 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941)

Citing Cases

Matter of Pestlin v. Haxton Canning Co.

Claimant was not employed to work in a canning plant and never did work there. He was employed exclusively as…

Kerker v. Maple View Dairy, Inc.

“On the other hand[,] if the employee is on the premises solely out of the kindness of the employer[,]…