Legal Opinion
Claim of Burke v. Towner Bros.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 15, 1922PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Van Kirk, J.:
The employers of the deceased were dealers in motorcycles and bicycles; they also conducted certain speed tests on a machine called a home trainer. The home trainer was in the front room or compartment of the building and the contestants changed their clothes in a rear room. Elsinger had just finished a test and went to this rear room. Burke was there. Elsinger and Burke each had one foot on a box, Elsinger putting on his street shoes and Burke taking his off preparatory to taking part in a speed test. It seems that there were two kinds of tests, one for speed and one for…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Matter of Heitz v. . RuppertNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Claim of Griffin v. A. Roberson & SonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
- Matter of Knocks v. . Metal Packing Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1921
- Claim of the Claim for Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law, on Account of the Death of Watkinson v. Hotel PennsylvaniaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
- Claim for the Death of Watkinson v. Hotel PennsylvaniaNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Fisher v. HalliburtonDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2010
- Claim of Ramos v. Taxi Transit Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1949
- Goldhirsch v. American Character Doll Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1930