Case Name: Before State Industrial Board, Respondent. William F. Schlener, Respondent, v. The American News Company and Another, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1924-11-13
Citations: 210 A.D. 511
Docket Number: 
Parties: Before State Industrial Board, Respondent. William F. Schlener, Respondent, v. The American News Company and Another, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 210
Pages: 511–515

Head Matter:
Before State Industrial Board, Respondent. William F. Schlener, Respondent, v. The American News Company and Another, Appellants.
Third Department,
November 13, 1924.
Workmen’s compensation — claimant was injured by intoxicated fellow-servant after refusing to loan him money— assailant, although employee, had not been working for several days — assault occurred during working hours — injury arose out of and in course of employment.
The claimant suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, since it appears that while he was engaged at work he was assaulted by an intoxicated fellow-servant after he had refused to loan him some money, although the fellow-servant had not been working for eight days prior to the assault, apparently because of his intoxicated condition.
The claimant did nothing to initiate the assault, which was due solely to the fact that his fellow-servant was intoxicated, and it was the work of the claimant which brought him into the presence of the intoxicated man and exposed him to the risk arising from such intoxication.
Van Kibk and McCann, JJ., dissent, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendants, The American News Company and another, from an award of the State Industrial Board made on the 24th day of July, 1923.
Frank J. O’ Neill [Barnett Cohen of counsel], for the appellants.
Carl Sherman, Attorney-General [E. C. Aiken, Deputy Attorney-General, of counsel], for the respondents.

Opinion:
Cochrane, P. J.:
While claimant was at work wrapping paper bundles for train delivery at five a. m., an intoxicated fellow-servant asked him for the loan of $1. This was refused by claimant and as he kept at his work with his head turned from the fellow-servant the latter cut him with a knife causing a facial disfigurement for which an award of $750 has been made. The fellow-servant, although in the service of the employer, had not been working for eight days, apparently because of his intoxicated condition. The only point raised against the award is that the case is not distinguishable from Matter of Scholtzhauer v. C. & L. Lunch Co. (233 N. Y. 12), where a waitress was shot by a negro fellow-servant who had invited her to go^ut with him one evening and who was angry because of her statement to a third employee " that she would not go out with a negro." We think the two cases are not similar. In that case the employment " brought the two persons together " but that fact was held to have no " bearing on the injury." Here the assault was due to the intoxication of a fellow-employee. In that view of the case it may be said in the language of the opinion in the case cited that the injury was " directly traceable to and connected with the employment." It is true that the assailant had not been working for eight days but he was nevertheless continued in the service of the employer and his presence at five o'clock in the morning was evidently because he thought that as an employee he had a right to,be there. The employer in the report of injury describes the assailant as a " driver." He was continued in the employment after the assault. Where an employee is assaulted by' an intoxicated fellow-employee and the assault is due to the fact of intoxication it would seem that the occurrence arose " out of " as well as " in the course of " the employment. It is to be observed that in the Scholtzhauer Case (supra) it was not the refusal of the waitress to accept the invitation of the negro which aroused his anger but her statement to another employee of her reason for such refusal and the repetition of such statement to the negro. That feature of that case was brought out by Mr. Justice Hinman in Rosmuth v. American Radiator Co. (201 App. Div. 207), and in respect thereto he says: " In that sense she initiated the assault." Here the claimant did nothing to initiate the assault. On the contrary, it would not have occurred had the assailant not been intoxicated. It was due solely to that fact. It was the work of the claimant which brought him into the presence of this intoxicated person and exposed him to the risk arising from such intoxication. " He was brought by the conditions of his work ' within the zone of special danger.' " (Matter of Leonbruno v. Champlain Silk Mills, 229 N. Y. 470; Matter of Verschleiser v. Stern & Son, Id. 192; Matter of Katz v. Kadans & Co., 232 id. 420.)
The award should be affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board.
All concur, except Van Kirk, J., dissenting with an opinion in which McCann, J., concurs.