Legal Opinion · Dissent

Claim of Hille v. Gerald Records

New York Court of Appeals

Decided November 13, 1968Published

1Dissent

Scileppi, J. (dissenting).

I dissent and vote to affirm.

As a general rule, in order that an injury arise out of and in the course of employment within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, it must have occurred on the employer’s premises, and injuries received while going to and from work are not compensable. The reason for this rule stems from the basic purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Law to shoulder on industry the expense incident to the hazards of industry. As one court has aptly put it, the reason for the Workmen’s Compensation Law ‘ ‘ is that in a modern industrial state…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Claim of Dependents of Marks v. GrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
  2. Nicholas v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Claim of Tiernan v. PotterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
  4. Lindebauer v. Weiner, New York County Courts1916
  5. American Mercury Insurance Company v. Theodore BrittonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1963

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API