Matter of Schneider v. United Whelan Drug Stores

15 Citing cases

  1. Voight v. Rettinger Transp., Inc.

    306 N.W.2d 133 (Minn. 1981)   Cited 5 times
    Reversing denial of compensation to claimant who was accidentally shot by intoxicated fellow employee "attempt[ing] to generate some excitement" because claimant's trip to the bar "for recreational purposes was a reasonable activity and therefore incident to the employment relationship"

    The rule of portal to portal coverage in traveling employee situations when such an employee is engaged in a reasonable activity has been extensively applied by other courts. In Schneider v. United Whelan Drug Stores, 284 A.D. 1072, 135 N.Y.S.2d 875 (3rd Dep't 1954), an employee on a domestic trip drowned in a boating accident in the intervening hours before his return flight. In reversing a denial of compensation to employee's widow, the court noted that there are:

  2. Grice v. National Cash Register Co.

    250 S.C. 1 (S.C. 1967)   Cited 8 times

    Messrs. Henry Hammer, Isadore S. Bernstein, of Columbia and Yarborough, Parrott Anderson, of Florence, forAppellants, cite: As to the findings of fact of the SingleCommissioner, affirmed by the Full Industrial Commission,that the deceased died as the result of an accidentarising out of and in the course of his employment, beingamply supported by the evidence of record and the law applicablethereto, and hence binding on appeal to the CircuitCourt and to the Supreme Court: 247 S.C. 241, 146 S.E.2d 856; 244 S.C. 6, 135 S.E.2d 321; 236 S.C. 253, 113 S.E.2d 827; 85 N.J. Super. 320, 204 A.2d 621; 90 N.J. Super. 243, 217 A.2d 140; Vol. 51, No. 3, American Bar Association Journal, 280; 135 N.Y.S.2d 875; 189 N.Y.S.2d 361; 14 A.D.2d 955, 221 N.Y.S.2d 113; 226 N.Y.2d 918; 305 N.Y. 20, 110 N.E.2d 406; 304 N.Y. 461, 108 N.E.2d 609; 86 S.Ct. 153; 299 F.2d 74; 85 S.Ct. 1012; 299 F.2d 74; 340 U.S. 405; 335 F.2d 70, Cert. den. 85 S. Ct. 1080, 380 U.S. 950; 305 F.2d 699; 203 F.2d 641; 236 S.C. 515, 115 S.E.2d 57; 207 S.C. 316, 35 S.E.2d 713; 205 S.C. 433, 32 S.E.2d 365; 204 S.C. 423, 30 S.E.2d 36; 198 S.C. 373, 17 S.E.2d 695; 198 S.C. 49, 16 S.E.2d 289; 240 S.C. 56, 124 S.E.2d 617; 216 S.C. 93, 56 S.E.2d 747; 207 S.C. 258, 35 S.E.2d 838; 205 S.C. 423, 32 S.E.2d 240. Messrs. Willcox, Hardee, Houck, Palmer O'Farrell and Gordon Badger Baker, Jr., of Florence, for Respondents, cite: As to the accident, the cause of deceased's death,not being compensable: 245 S.C. 265; 205 S.C. 423, 32 S.E.2d 240; 205 S.C. 353, 32 S.E.2d 1; 208 S.C. 139, 37 S.E.2d 286; 236 S.C. 226, 113 S.E.2d 734; 225 S.C. 408, 82 S.E.2d 794; 235 S.C. 239, 110 S.E.2d 851; 90 F.2d 637; 1 Larsen's Workmen's Compensation Law 328,

  3. In re Maher

    72 A.D.3d 1380 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 4 times

    ground below For an injury to be compensable, it must arise out of and in the course of employment ( see Workers' Compensation Law ยง 10). Whether a particular activity is compensable is a factual issue for the Board to resolve ( see Matter of Pedro v Village of Endicott, 307 AD2d 598, 599, lv dismissed 1 NY3d 546, lv denied 2 NY3d 706), "with the test being whether the activit[y] [is] both reasonable and sufficiently work related under the circumstances" ( Matter of Marotta v Town Country Elec., Inc., 51 AD3d 1126, 1127 [citations omitted]; Matter of Pedro v Village of Endicott, 307 AD2d at 599; Matter of Grady v Dun Bradstreet, 265 AD2d 643, 644). Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we cannot say that the Board erred in concluding that claimant's conduct โ€” accessing the hotel roof via the bathroom window โ€” was unreasonable under the circumstances ( see Matter of Grady v Dun Bradstreet, 265 AD2d at 644; Matter of Hancock v Ingersoll-Rand Co., 21 AD2d 703, 704; compare Matter of Schneider v United Whelan Drug Stores, 284 App Div 1072, 1073). Accordingly, the Board's decision is affirmed.

  4. Jensen v. the Industrial Commission

    305 Ill. App. 3d 274 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 16 times

    For instance, while the recreational activities of a traveling employee may be compensable (see, e.g., Bagcraft Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, No. 3-97-0901WC, slip op. at 2 (Ill. App. December 23, 1998)), our supreme court in U.S. Industries, 40 Ill. 2d at 475, found that a claimant's pleasure drive in unfamiliar, mountainous terrain was an unforeseeable and unreasonable activity. In other words, the manner in which the claimant in U.S. Industries sought recreation was unreasonable and unforeseeable. Additionally, Professor Larson, while comparing the U.S. Industries case with Schneider v. United Whelan Drug Stores, 284 N.Y. App. Div. 1072, 135 N.Y.S.2d 875 (1964), a case where the court found compensable the death of a traveling employee who drowned on a pleasure boat ride, stated that Illinois courts "would perhaps say that there is a difference in reasonableness between killing time by taking a boat ride and by `undertaking a midnight pleasure drive in unfamiliar mountain terrain.'" 2 A. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law ยง 25.23(c), at 5-321, 5-323-24 n.41.1 (1997).

  5. Garver v. Eastern Airlines

    553 So. 2d 263 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 8 times
    Reversing order denying compensation "based upon a finding that . . . [a flight attendant] was engaged in a substantial deviation from her employment," where the flight attendant's injury engendering activity during a layover โ€” riding in a car to a social visit immediately following lunch โ€” was not an unreasonable or unforeseeable activity

    See, e.g., Cavalcante, 85 N.J. Super. 320, 204 A.2d 621 (Super. Ct.Law Div. 1964) (injuries suffered in an automobile accident following several hours of drinking and dancing); Robards v. New York Div. Elec. Prods., Inc., 33 A.D.2d 67, 307 N.Y.S.2d 599 (App. Div. 1970) (injuries suffered in an auto accident following activity of playing pool and drinking); Schneider v. United Whelan Drug Stores, 284 A.D. 1072, 135 N.Y.S.2d 875 (App. Div. 1954) (death benefits approved for next of kin of worker who drowned following boating accident during a layover); Slaughter v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 60 Or. App. 610, 654 P.2d 1123 (Ct.App. 1982) (injuries suffered by a long-haul truck driver during a fight in a bar during a layover); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bd. (Seeley), 110 Pa. Commw. 619, 532 A.2d 1257 (Commw. Ct. 1987) (injuries suffered by over-the-road truck driver struck by a motorist while walking across a highway to his motel following several hours of drinking and eating at a bar-restaurant), appeal denied, 519 Pa. 662, 546 A.2d 623 (1988).

  6. Matter of Osterberg v. Columbia University

    56 A.D.2d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)   Cited 3 times

    The death of claimant's decedent occurred in Philadelphia where he had been sent by his employer to give a series of lectures. Accordingly, any injury or death during the entire period he was required to be there would be compensable so long as he was engaged in a reasonable activity at the time of the incident for which compensation is sought (Matter of Schneiderv United Whelan Drug Stores, 284 App. Div. 1072). Although accident, notice and causal relation were established initially, and compensation was paid, an application to reopen was granted for further development of this record. Upon the argument of this appeal we granted appellants' request to go back before the board to present to it certain matter which should have been before it at the time of the determination appealed from.

  7. Silver Engr. v. Simmons

    30 Colo. App. 396 (Colo. App. 1972)   Cited 3 times

    The trend in recent cases is to allow compensation for any injury occurring during a "travel status" period or when an employee is required by his employer to live in a remote place, as long as the employee was engaged in a reasonable activity at the time of the injury. See Game Fish Dept. v. Pardoe, 147 Colo. 363, 363 P.2d 1067; Schneider v. United Whelan Drug Stores, 284 App. Div. 1072, 135 N.Y.S.2d 875; 1 A. Larson, Workers' Compensation Law ยง 25.00, et seq. We find the rationale of this trend persuasive.

  8. Matter of Dow v. Collins

    22 A.D.2d 250 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)   Cited 4 times

    The employer had given him permission to stay on the island and to use the boat while he was employed 150 miles from home. Along with his welding equipment Mr. Dow brought camping equipment and fishing tackle to the job site and under the circumstances fishing and/or boating would be a reasonable recreational activity ( Matter of Leonard v. Peoples Camp Corp., 9 A.D.2d 420, affd. 9 N.Y.2d 652; Matter of Schneider v. United Whelan Drug Stores, 284 App. Div. 1072). An employee who must remain away from home retains his employment status while indulging in normal activities at the location of his work ( Matter of Eixman v. Rothman's East Norwich Inn, 6 A.D.2d 911; Matter of Roher v. Cherry Grove Hotel Rest., 20 A.D.2d 593, mot. for lv. to app. den. 14 N.Y.2d 485).

  9. Matter of Orpin v. Brother Co.

    15 A.D.2d 282 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)   Cited 8 times

    On the basis of Matter of Lewis v. Knappen Tippetts Abbett Eng. Co. ( 304 N.Y. 461) and Matter of Tushinsky v. National Broadcasting Co. ( 265 App. Div. 301, appeal dismissed 292 N.Y. 595), we said (p. 208) "By imposing the requirement that the employee be distant from his home environment, the employer imposes necessarily some limitation on the normal after-working hours activities of the employee and this finds implicit recognition in some of the decided cases." We discussed the indications of the direction of New York decisional law in cases where employees are injured in employment far from home, to be deduced from such cases as Matter of Schneider v. United Whelan Drug Stores ( 284 App. Div. 1072); Matter of Daly v. State Ins. Fund ( 284 App. Div. 174, motion for leave to appeal denied 307 N.Y. 942); Matter of Commissioner of Taxation Finance v. Katherine Gibbs School ( 277 App. Div. 126, motion for leave to appeal denied 301 N.Y. 813); Matter of Blake v. Grand Union Co. ( 277 App. Div. 914, motion for leave to appeal denied 301 N.Y. 813). We followed Revlon in Matter of Eixman v. Rothman's East Norwich Inn ( 6 A.D.2d 911) and in Matter of Leonard v. Peoples Camp Corp. ( 9 A.D.2d 420, affd. 9 N.Y.2d 652) where the deceased employee hired to work at a Summer camp some 50 miles from his home was drowned while apparently bathing.

  10. Matter of Leonard v. Peoples Camp Corp.

    9 A.D.2d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)   Cited 9 times

    The evidence would also support an award under the principle that "the employment status continues during the normal activities of an employee required to travel or sojourn at a distance from his home." ( Matter of Eixman v. Rothman's East Norwich Inn, 6 A.D.2d 911.) That swimming or bathing was a reasonable activity, under all the circumstances, might well be found. ( Matter of Schreiber v. Revlon Prods., 5 A.D.2d 207; Matter of Schneider v. United Whelan Drug Stores, 284 App. Div. 1072.) Appellants cite, as barring an award, Professor Larson's formulation of the principles under which recreational activities have been held within the course of employment (1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, ยง 22.00).