From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. Ostergaard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 28, 1995
214 A.D.2d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

April 28, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siragusa, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff, an employee of Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak), left work and drove his vehicle from an employee parking lot onto Eastman Avenue. Plaintiff proceeded westerly on Eastman Avenue for about 100 yards and, because the traffic ahead was backed up, stopped at a cross-walk in the middle of a block to allow pedestrians to cross the street. Some 20 to 30 seconds later, his vehicle was struck in the rear by defendant's vehicle. Defendant, a fellow Kodak employee, had exited that same parking lot onto Eastman Avenue behind plaintiff. Defendant had taken her eyes off the road in order to look at her car radio immediately before the accident occurred. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the accident occurred within the course of employment and thus that Workers' Compensation was plaintiff's exclusive remedy. Supreme Court properly denied that motion.

"As a general rule, employees are not deemed to be within the scope of their employment while traveling to and from work" (Matter of Greene v City of New York Dept. of Social Servs., 44 N.Y.2d 322, 325). An exception has been recognized, however, where the accident occurs in proximity to the place of employment and there is a causal relationship between the accident and "the risks attendant with employment" (Matter of Husted v Seneca Steel Serv., 41 N.Y.2d 140, 144). A "risk attendant with employment" is a "risk not shared by the public generally" (Matter of Husted v Seneca Steel Serv., supra, at 144-145). Although the public street where the accident occurred was adjacent to the employer's premises and many Kodak employees exited the premises onto it, defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the accident was causally related to a special risk of employment and that the risk to which plaintiff was exposed was not a risk shared generally by the public (see, Quarant v Industrial Commn., 38 Ill.2d 490, 231 N.E.2d 397; cf., Matter of Husted v Seneca Steel Serv., supra).


Summaries of

Wilson v. Ostergaard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 28, 1995
214 A.D.2d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Wilson v. Ostergaard

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN K. WILSON, Respondent, v. C.B. OSTERGAARD, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 28, 1995

Citations

214 A.D.2d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
626 N.Y.S.2d 624

Citing Cases

Matter of Roggero v. Frontier Ins. Group

Contrary to claimants contentions, there was sufficient evidence to support the Workers' Compensation Boards…

Geiss v. Mitchell

Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint on…