You are here: / / ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INJURED BY CO-WORKER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ...
, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INJURED BY CO-WORKER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE GROSSLY NEGLIGENT AND THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ALSO A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER CONDONED DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS, PLAINTIFF’S SUIT NOT PRECLUDED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW.

The Third Department determined plaintiff could sue in negligence, despite the fact that defendant was a co-worker. Defendant struck plaintiff with a golf club inflicting an injury that required the removal of a testicle. There was a question of fact whether defendant’s actions were grossly negligent or reckless and there not within the scope of defendant’s employment. There was also a question of fact whether the employer condoned defendant’s actions:

There is no dispute that plaintiff and defendant were coemployees, that plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment and that he collected workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries. Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), these benefits are the exclusive remedy for an employee injured “by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ.” Having the same employer is not synonymous with being “in the same employ” and, to be shielded from liability, a defendant “must himself [or herself] have been acting within the scope of his [or her] employment and not have been engaged in a willful or intentional tort” … . Here, there is no indication that plaintiff was involved in any horseplay … . The differing versions of the event presented by the parties, as well as the two club employees who supported plaintiff’s version, raise genuine questions of fact as to whether defendant intended to strike plaintiff and did so in an excessive manner given the sensitive area of impact. Although defendant was not directly disciplined by the club and resigned to take a new position a few months after the incident, a question of fact also remains as to whether the club condoned defendant’s actions. As such, we conclude that Supreme Court properly determined that questions of fact existed as to whether defendant acted in a “grossly negligent and/or reckless” manner when he swung the golf club shaft and struck plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint … . Montgomery v Hackenburg, 2017 NY Slip Op 01744, 3rd Dept 3-9-17

NEGIGENCE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INJURED BY CO-WORKER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE GROSSLY NEGLIGENT AND THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ALSO A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER CONDONED DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS, PLAINTIFF’S SUIT NOT PRECLUDED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (NEGLIGENCE, (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INJURED BY CO-WORKER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE GROSSLY NEGLIGENT AND THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ALSO A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER CONDONED DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS, PLAINTIFF’S SUIT NOT PRECLUDED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INJURED BY CO-WORKER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE GROSSLY NEGLIGENT AND THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ALSO A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER CONDONED DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS, PLAINTIFF’S SUIT NOT PRECLUDED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW)

You might also like
LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE MANDATORY CONFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN NOTICE OF SOME OF THE EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY COUNTY COURT FOR THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; THE MATTER WAS REMANDED FOR A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
POSSESSION OF SEXUAL PERFORMANCE OF A CHILD CONVICTIONS REVERSED, PHOTOGRAPHS DID NOT MEET STATUTORY CRITERIA, ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION IN THIS RAPE, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT, AND POSSESSION OF SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD PROSECUTION, THE DISSENT WOULD HAVE REVERSED BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITS UPON WHICH THE PROSECUTION RELIED WERE NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (THIRD DEPT).
THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S DECISION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE THE APPLICATION DID NOT SPECIFY WHEN THE OBJECTIONS TO THE DECISION WERE MADE (THIRD DEPT).
BOARD’S FINDING THAT CLAIMANT FRAUDULENTLY EXAGGERATED THE EFFECTS OF HIS INJURIES NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BOARD’S DETERMINATION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA; AND DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE DECIDED AGAINST PLEADING GUILTY HAD HE BEEN GIVEN ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE RISK OF DEPORTATION (THIRD DEPT).
BUT FOR TEST FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE IS NOT THE SAME AS SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, IT IS ENOUGH THAT AN ATTORNEY’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE A PROXIMATE CAUSE.
Drivers Transporting Patients to a Physical Therapy Facility Are Employees Not Independent Contractors

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THERE WAS NO GOOD REASON TO DENY PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A WITNESS, DETERMINATION... POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED TO...