You are here: / / THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE...
,

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A TRUCKING COMPANY AND A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY WITH WHICH THE TRUCKING COMPANY HAD A CONTRACT, THEREFORE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARD WAS PROPERLY SPLIT BETWEEN THEM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that claimant, a tractor trailer driver, was an employee of Eaton's Trucking Service and a special employee of Quality Carrier, with which Eaton had entered a contract. Therefore the Workers' Compensation Board properly found Eaton and Quality were each responsible for 50% of the workers' compensation awards:

… [W]e find that substantial evidence supports the Board's factual determination that claimant was a special employee of Quality … . Looking at “the underlying facts of the parties' relationship” … , the evidence established that Eaton and Quality had an arrangement whereby Eaton's drivers, including claimant, hauled products exclusively for Quality's customers and did so in furtherance of Quality's business, and that Eaton operated under Quality's logo and license without which Eaton could not have conducted its hauling operation. Their arrangement was the type of arrangement in which the “employee and equipment of [the] general employer were necessarily used and temporarily assigned to work for th[e] business” of the special employer, which has been recognized as creating a special employment relationship … . While Quality did not control the day-to-day oversight of claimant, this is not dispositive as Eaton and claimant operated entirely under Quality's authority and pursuant to its policies. As a result, Quality had sufficient control over the “details and ultimate result” of claimant's work, and Quality's working relationship with claimant was “sufficient in kind and degree so that [Quality] may be deemed [to be his] employer” … . Matter of Mitchell v Eaton's Trucking Serv., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06839, Third Dept 10-11-18

WORKERS' COMPENSATION (THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A TRUCKING COMPANY AND A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY WITH WHICH THE TRUCKING COMPANY HAD A CONTRACT, THEREFORE THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION AWARD WAS PROPERLY SPLIT BETWEEN THEM (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW  (THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A TRUCKING COMPANY AND A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY WITH WHICH THE TRUCKING COMPANY HAD A CONTRACT, THEREFORE THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION AWARD WAS PROPERLY SPLIT BETWEEN THEM (THIRD DEPT))/SPECIAL EMPLOYEE (THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A TRUCKING COMPANY AND A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY WITH WHICH THE TRUCKING COMPANY HAD A CONTRACT, THEREFORE THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION AWARD WAS PROPERLY SPLIT BETWEEN THEM (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
THE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE RULE RE: MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR DANGEROUS CONDITIONS APPLIES TO MORE THAN JUST SURFACE DEFECTS; HERE THE RULE APPLIED TO AN ARCH-SHAPED BOLLARD OR BARRIER WHICH FELL OVER WHEN A CHILD WAS SWINGING FROM IT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
IN A VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE, THE STANDARD OF PROOF OF IMPAIRMENT FROM MARIJUANA IS THE SAME AS THE STANDARD OF PROOF OF IMPAIRMENT FROM ALCOHOL (THIRD DEPT).
Upward Departure in SORA Proceeding Affirmed
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT).
DATE OF LOSS DEEMED TO BE DATE THE CLAIM FOR A STOLEN CAR WAS DENIED, NOT THE DATE THE CAR WAS STOLEN (THIRD DEPT).
MOTHER’S OBJECTIONS TO THE CHILD SUPPORT ORDER WERE NEVER SERVED ON FATHER’S COUNSEL; THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER GRANTING THE OBJECTIONS IS VOID (THIRD DEPT). ​
FAMILY COURT’S RELIGION-BASED DIRECTIVES IN THIS CUSTODY CASE WERE NOT WITHIN THE “BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD” CATEGORIES OUTLINED IN THE SEMINAL CASE, ALDOUS V ALDOUS, AND WERE THEREFORE VACATED (THIRD DEPT). ​

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

FIREFIGHTER’S RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE NEGLIGENCE SUIT BY A POLICE OFFICER... CLAIMANT’S TERMINATION FROM HER EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY BASED UPON TWO...