Case Name: In the Matter of the Claim of August Rydeen, Appellant, against Monarch Furniture Company et al., Respondents. State Industrial Board, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1925-06-02
Citations: 240 N.Y. 295
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of August Rydeen, Appellant, against Monarch Furniture Company et al., Respondents. State Industrial Board, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 240
Pages: 295–301

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Claim of August Rydeen, Appellant, against Monarch Furniture Company et al., Respondents. State Industrial Board, Respondent.
(Argued May 4, 1925;
decided June 2, 1925.)
Workmen’s compensation — master and servant — injury to foreman from blow struck by employee during dispute — injury received in course of and arising out of employment when dispute was over work which both were employed to do.
Where an employee, who with his foreman was engaged in loading a truck with lumber, left before the work was completed without notifying the foreman who, after waiting awhile, went after the employee and spoke to him about his conduct, resulting in a dispute or quarrel during which the employee struck the foreman, the resulting injury was received in the course of the employment and arose out of it. The dispute was over the work which both were employed to do and what the foreman did was in pursuit of his employment and in furtherance of his employer’s business. (Matter of Knocks v. Metal Packing Corp., 231 N. Y. 78; Matter of Heitz v. Ruppert, 218 N. Y. 148, followed.)
Matter of Rydeen v. Monarch Furniture Co., 212 App. Div. 843, reversed.
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third- judicial department, entered January 25, 1925, affirming a decision of the State Industrial Board denying compensation to claimant under the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
J. S. Fowler for appellant.
The injury to the claimant arose out of and in the course of his employment and he is entitled to compensation therefor. (Heitz v. Ruppert, 218 N. Y. 148; Knocks v. Metal Package Corp., 231 N. Y. 78; Ives v. South Buffalo Railway Co., 210 N. Y. 271; Matter of Yume, 3 State Dept. Rep. 353; 169 App. Div. 905; Rossmuth v. American Radiator Company, 201 App. Div. 207; Matter of Europe v. Addison Amusements Co., 231 N. Y. 105; Sprang v. Broadway Brewing & Melting Co., 182 App. Div. 443; Verschleiser v. Stern & Son, 229 N. Y. 192.)
John S. Leonard and Louis L. Thrasher for respondents.
Injuries growing out of altercations between employees áre subject to the same rule as any other injury, i. e., it must appear before recovery may be had that the injury arose “ out of ” and “ in the course .of ” the employment. (Matter of Heitz v. Ruppert, 218 N. Y. 148; Frost v. Franklin Co., 204 App. Div. 700.) The present claim falls within that class of cases which hold that the employee has stepped aside from his employment, and his act was one which had no relation to the employer’s interest. (De Filippis v. Falkenberg, 170 App. Div. 153; Griffin v. Roberson & Son, 176 App. Div. 6; Matter of Stillwagon v. Callan Bros., 183 App. Div. 141; Stein v. Williams Printing Co., 195 App. Div. 336.)

Opinion:
Crane, J.
The quarrel in this case between the two employees Rydeen and Foster arose we think out of and in the course of the employment. The dispute which resulted in Rydeen's injury was over the work which Foster was expected to do and which he had neglected. This brings the claim within the cases of Matter of Knocks v. Metal Packing Corp. (231 N. Y. 78) and Matter of Heitz v. Ruppert (218 N. Y. 148). In the latter case we held that when one employee injures another in a quarrel over the manner of working together in a common employment, the accident 'arose out of the employment if it was connected with the employer's work and in a sense in his interest. Such we think is the case here. Both men were engaged in loading a truck with lumber. Rydeen stood on the truck receiving the lumber as it was passed up to him by Foster. Before the work was completed Foster got tired and left without notifying Rydeen. After waiting a while Rydeen came down, went over to Foster, and spoke to him about his conduct. Rydeen was foreman and Foster's superior. Foster according to his own testimony said, " in the meantime this man Rydeen come over and wanted to know why I didn't stay there and raise that plank, ' because,' I said ' it is too hard work and jmu must not think I am a damn fool.' "
The dispute or quarrel resulted in Foster striking Rydeen causing the injury. What Rydeen did was in pursuit of his employment and in furtherance of his employer's business. The dispute was over the work which both were employed to do. The resulting injury was received in the course of the employment and arose out of it.
This claim is entirely different from those cases where an employee has been injured in a personal quarrel or in a dispute arising out of ill will or over a matter in no way connected with the work.
The order appealed from and determination of State Industrial Board should be reversed and the matter remitted .to the State Industrial Board for consideration, with costs in all courts to abide event.