You are here: / / Question of Fact About Whether Driving to or from Work Constitutes an Act...

Question of Fact About Whether Driving to or from Work Constitutes an Act Within the Scope of Employment

Finding that issues of fact had been raised about whether the plaintiff was acting within the scope of his employment (thereby making Workers’ Compensation his only remedy), the First Department wrote:

Defendant contends that workers’ compensation benefits are plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for the injuries he sustained when he was struck by the truck defendant was driving (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 29[6]). However, issues of fact exist whether the parties were “acting within the scope of their employment, as coemployees, at the time of injury” … . * * * While, generally, traveling to and from work is not deemed to be within the scope of employment, as an employee approaches the site of his employment, “there develops a gray area where the risks of street travel merge with the risks attendant with employment” … . Then the test of compensability is whether there is a causal relationship between the employment and the accident and whether the employee “was exposed to a particular risk not shared by the public generally” … . Issues of fact exist whether defendant’s accident was causally related to a risk attendant with his employment rather than one shared by the public generally. Ortiz v Lynch, 2013 NY Slip Op 02667, 9839, 302254/11, 1st Dept, 4-18-13

 

You might also like
Quantum Meruit and Unjust Enrichment Causes of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed
ALTHOUGH THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING, IN THE FACE OF AWARDING DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES, REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).
BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT STATED STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED CRACK IN THE STAIRWAY (FIRST DEPT).
A NON-DEFECTIVE CELLAR DOOR CLOSED AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S HEAD; THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE PREMISES; AND THERE WAS NO STRUCTURAL DEFECT; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A LADDER WAS INTENDED FOR USE AS A STAGE PROP BY ACTORS AS OPPOSED TO AN OSHA COMPLIANT LADDER; EVEN WHERE A LABOR LAW 200 ACTION WILL NOT LIE, A COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION MAY BE VIABLE; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED DEFENDANT LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM BY ALTERING THE LADDER (FIRST DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE OF “SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT FIRST REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED (NO TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION?) BUT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
INSURER’S DUTY TO DEFEND MUST BE DETERMINED SOLELY UPON THE INFORMATION WITHIN THE COMPLAINT, MATTERS OUTSIDE THE COMPLAINT MUST BE RAISED IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR AT TRIAL.
REAR DRIVER MUST TAKE WEATHER CONDITIONS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN FOLLOWING ANOTHER CAR, PLANTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Parent Who, Under a Shared Custody Schedule, Has Custody of the Child the Majority... Claimant’s Failure to Give Timely Written Notice of Injury Excused