Claim of Lasher v. Primo Producing Co. — 227 A.D. 676

Majority

p. 676

In the Matter of the Claim of Rose Lasher, Respondent, against Primo Producing Company, Inc., and Another, Appellants. State Industrial Board, Respondent.^[1]

Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board, on the authority of Matter of Norris v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. ( 246 N. Y. 307 ); Domres v. Syracuse Safe Co. ( 211 App. Div. 823 ; affd., 240 N. Y. 611 ); Bountiful Brick Co. v. Giles ( 276 U. S. 154 , 158). Van Kirk, P. J., Hill and Hasbrouek, JJ., concur; Davis and Whitmyer, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and remit, on the ground that it is evident from the record that the period of labor of the deceased employee had not yet begun, and that the accident did not occur in the course of any of the duties he was directed or called upon to perform; that the testimony of the union organizer, Rothenstein, was not based upon facts within his knowledge, but upon hearsay, opinions and conclusions; it, therefore, furnished no corroboration of the alleged declarations of the decedent, or the basis of a finding that the accidental

p. 677

injuries arose out of and in the course of the employment. (Matter of Case, 214 N. Y. 199 .)

Cases cited

Claim of Norris v. New York Central Railroad 246 N. Y. 307 N.Y. 1927-11-22 p. 676
Claim of Domres v. Syracuse Safe Co. 240 N. Y. 611 N.Y. 1925-04-10 p. 676
Bountiful Brick Co. v. Giles 276 U. S. 154 SCOTUS 1928-02-20 at 158 p. 676
In re Case 214 N. Y. 199 N.Y. 1915-02-25 p. 677