Legal Opinion
Gibbs v. R. H. Macy & Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 12, 1925PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
H. T. Kellogg, J.:
The Workmen’s Compensation Law distinguishes between an employee “ upon the premises or at the plant ” of the employer, and an employee “ in the course of his employment away from the plant of his employer.” (§ 2, subd. 4.) It is familiar law *336that a plant worker in traveling to and from the plant is not in the course of his employment. (Matter of McInerney v. Buffalo & S. R. R. Corp., 225 N. Y. 130; Scanlon v. Herald Co., 201 App. Div. 173; Coman v. Model Dairy Co., 210 id. 503.) It is equally well settled that a non-plant worker, while traveling the public streets on his…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McInerney v. Buffalo & Susquehanna RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Claim of Harby v. Marwell Bros.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Claim of Scanlon v. Herald Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Claim of Hospers v. J. Hungerford-Smith Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
3Cited by20 opinions
- Reisinger-Siehler Co. v. PerryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1933
- Nehring v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
- Shauntz v. Schwegler Bros.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
- Claim of Oram v. Byron G. Moon Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1941
- Burdo v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.