TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Claim of Wakefield v. World-Telegram

In the Matter of the Claim of Lizzie Wakefield, against World-Telegram and Another, State Industrial Board

Claim of Wakefield v. World-Telegram, 249 A.D. 884 (1937)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 14, 1937
Citations
249 A.D. 884292 N.Y.S. 5881937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10068

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

This is an appeal by the employer and insurance carrier from an award of the State Industrial Board made in favor of the widow and two minor children of Hugo Wakefield. The sole question is whether the shooting arose out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased. Hugo Wakefield was employed by the World-Telegram to drive a delivery truck which was kept in the Excelsior Garage. When his day’s work was finished it was bis duty to return the truck to the garage and before placing it in its position to drive it to a gasoline pump where it was filled with gasoline. On the day of the shooting while the deceased was on the seat of his truck and the truck was being filled with gasoline he was shot by another employee of the World-Telegram, who was not working that day but who had a day off and who had come to the garage completely intoxicated and had secured from his locker the revolver with which he shot the deceased. The accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. (Matter of Markell v. Green Felt Shoe Co., 221 N. Y. 493 ; Matter of Leonbruno v. Champlain Sills Mills, 229 id. 470.) Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. ^MeNamee, Crapser, *885 Bliss and Heffeman, JJ., concur; Rhodes, Acting P. J., dissents. (See Schlener v. American News Co., 240 N. Y. 622 .)

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1939: 11941: 11942: 11949: 11950: 11956: 11983: 11989: 119392026peak 1939 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Perez v. Fred Harvey, Inc.224 P.2d 524 (N.M. 1950)
  2. Rodriguez v. Industrial Commission447 N.E.2d 186 (Ill. 1983)
  3. HOWARD ex rel. HOWARD v. Harwood's Restaurant Co.123 A.2d 815 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1956)
  4. Hurt v. Industrial Commission548 N.E.2d 122 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)
  5. Claim of Christiansen v. Hill Reproduction Co262 A.D. 379 (1941)
  6. Claim of Charbazian v. Regina Novelty Corp.257 A.D. 1097 (1939)

Most recent

  1. Hurt v. Industrial Commission548 N.E.2d 122 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)
  2. Rodriguez v. Industrial Commission447 N.E.2d 186 (Ill. 1983)
  3. HOWARD ex rel. HOWARD v. Harwood's Restaurant Co.123 A.2d 815 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1956)
  4. Perez v. Fred Harvey, Inc.224 P.2d 524 (N.M. 1950)
  5. Claim of Ramos v. Taxi Transit Co.276 A.D.2d 101 (1949) · Dissent
  6. Claim of Moran v. Moran Transportation Lines264 A.D. 966 (1942)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Markell v. Daniel Green Felt Shoe Co., 116 N.E. 1060 (N.Y. 1917) 17
Schlener v. Am. News Co., 148 N.E. 732 (N.Y. 1925) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list