From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Shepperson v. Mosher Brothers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 12, 1938
253 App. Div. 852 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Opinion

January 12, 1938.

Appeal from State Industrial Board.

Present — Hill, P.J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.


The sole contention of appellants is that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of claimant's employment. The employer was engaged in the automobile sales business and claimant was employed as a salesman. His duties required him to demonstrate and sell cars to customers. He not only worked at the storerooms of the employer but to a large extent outside. The salesmen of the employer were furnished cars which they were permitted to use in traveling to and from their homes. They were authorized to keep these cars in their respective garages. On December 12, 1935, claimant completed his day's work and proceeded to his home. While at home he received a call from his employer to return to the show rooms and demonstrate cars to a prospective customer and to collect the payment upon another car. Claimant returned to the show rooms and performed the work directed. After he had transacted the business which he was directed to perform he proceeded to his home in a car provided by his employer with the idea of storing it in the garage in the rear of his home for the night. While on his way the car ran off the road and claimant was injured, resulting in the total loss of his left eye. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board.


Summaries of

Matter of Shepperson v. Mosher Brothers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 12, 1938
253 App. Div. 852 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)
Case details for

Matter of Shepperson v. Mosher Brothers, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of ROBERT SHEPPERSON, Respondent, against…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 12, 1938

Citations

253 App. Div. 852 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Citing Cases

Sanderson v. Producers Comm. Assn

His use of the car was in furtherance of his employer's business and was beneficial to both him and the…

In re Rich Clark

In the instant matter, however, claimant was neither an on-call employee nor traveling to or from work when…