Majority
p. 496In the Matter of the Claim of Esther Fried et al. against Quinlan, Inc., et al., Respondents. State Industrial Board, Appellant. (Argued January 11, 1926; decided January 22, 1926.)
Headnote
Workmen’s compensation — master and servant ■ — death of workman from injury received in altercation resulting from discussion as to manner of doing work compensable as arising out of employment.Fried v. Quinlan, Inc., 214 App. Div. 837 , reversed.
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered November 18, 1925, reversing an award of the State Industrial Board made under the Workmen’s Compensation Law and dismissing a claim for compensation for death. Decedent, a tailor, while at work in the shop of
p. 497
Ms employer, became engaged m a quarrel with another workman arising from a discussion as to the manner of doing certain work. During the altercation decedent received a wound in the abdomen from the result of which he died. The Appellate Division held that the accident did not arise out of the employment.
Albert Ottihger, Attorney-General {E. C. Aiken of counsel), for appellant.
Richard F. Weeks and Frederick Mellor for respondents.
Order- of Appellate Division reversed and award of State Industrial Board affirmed, with costs m this court and Appellate Division on authority of Heitz v. Ruppert ( 218 N. Y. 148 ); Knocks v. Metal Packing Co. ( 231 N. Y. 78 ), and Rydeen v. Monarch Furniture Co. ( 240 N. Y. 295 ).
Concur: Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Lehman, JJ. Dissenting: His cock, Ch. J., McLaughlin and An-JJ.
Cases cited
- Claim of Heitz v. Ruppert 218 N. Y. 148 p. 497
- Claim of Knocks v. Metal Packing Corp. 231 N. Y. 78 p. 497
- Claim of Rydeen v. Monarch Furniture Co. 240 N. Y. 295 p. 497