Case Name: SPRATT v. SWEENEY & GRAY CO. et al.; VALENTINE v. SMITH, ANGEVINE & CO., Inc., et al.; POST v. BURGER & GOHLKE et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-05-07
Citations: 153 N.Y.S. 505
Docket Number: 
Parties: SPRATT v. SWEENEY & GRAY CO. et al. VALENTINE v. SMITH, ANGEVINE & CO., Inc., et al. POST v. BURGER & GOHLKE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 153
Pages: 505–509

Head Matter:
SPRATT v. SWEENEY & GRAY CO. et al. VALENTINE v. SMITH, ANGEVINE & CO., Inc., et al. POST v. BURGER & GOHLKE et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
May 7, 1915.)
Master and Servant <@=>87%, New, vol. 16 Key-No. Series—Workmen’s Compensation Act—Application to Accidents Occurring Without State—-“Employé.”
Where an employé of an employer doing business in the state was injured without the state, the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Consol. Laws, c. 67) nevertheless applied to the case, since the statute should be broadly interpreted to protect the employé for all injuries received in the course of the employment, and to charge upon the insurance fund the loss which otherwise would fall upon the master, more especially as section 3, subd. 4, of the act, defines an “employé” as a person engaged in a hazardous employment upon the premises or at the plant or in the course of his employment away from the plant of his employer.
[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Employé.]
Smith, P. J., dissenting.
<g^>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
In the matter of the claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of John Spratt against the Sweeney & Gray Company and its insurer, of Mike Valentine against Smith, Angevine & Co., Incorporated, and its insurer, and of William Post against Burger & Gohlke and its insurer. From awards of the Compensation Commission, the defendant employers and their insurers appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, LYON, HOWARD, and WOODWARD, JJ.
Bertrand L. Pettigrew, of New York City, for appellants Burger & Gohlke and Employers’ Liability Assur. Corporation.
James B. Henney, of New York City, for other appellants.
Egburt E. Woodbury, Atty. Gen., and E. C. Aiken, Deputy Atty. Gen. (Jeremiah F. Connor, of New York City, of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion:
JOHN M. KELLOGG, J.
The injuries sustained by the employes making these three claims resulted from accidents which occurred in the state of New Jersey, except in the case of claim No. 1379, where the accident occurred in the state of Connecticut. The claimants are all residents of this state, where the employers are engaged in business, and where the several contracts of employment were presumably made. All injuries were sustained in the ordinary course of employment. The state board has made the usual awards of compensation, and the only question presented by these appeals is as to whether the Workmen's Compensation Act of this state has extraterritorial effect, so as to allow compensation for accidents occurring in other states.
In McQueeney's Case, 153 N. Y. Supp. 554, decided at this term of court, we considered the provision of the Compensation Law declaring a presumption that the case of an injured employé is within the law, and found the presumption reasonable from the fact that the premium for insurance is based upon the pay roll of the employer, the number of employés, and the hazards of the different classes comprising each group; that the statute, by basing the amount to be paid into the fund upon the pay roll and the number of employés, contemplates that an employé while at work is engaged or may be considered as engaged all the while in the hazardous employment.
The same reasoning applies to this case. The employer is carrying on his business in this state and the premiums required to be paid by him are based upon the assumption that each of the employés who are engaged in and about his business are insured all the time they are acting within the course of their employment. The fact that an employé may from time to time be outside of the state in the course of his employment does not diminish the amount of premiums to be paid. The employer has paid for the insurance of his employé for all the time he is engaged in his work, and is entitled to the benefit of that insurance. The risk outside of the state is no greater than in the state, and it is immaterial to the insurer where the accident occurred, so long as it occurred in the business he had insured and during the time covered by the insurance. The fact, therefore, that the employer's contribution to the fund is based upon the pay roll and the number of men employed, without regard to the fact that from time to time some of them work outside of the state, emphasizes the fact that it is immaterial whether the injury took place within or without the state, so long as it occurred in the course of his employment, and gives emphasis to the provision of subdivision 4 of section 3 of the act, defining an employé as:
"A person who is engaged in a hazardous employment in the service of an employer carrying on or conducting the same upon the premises or at the plant or in the course of his employment away from the plant of his employer."
The time and earnings of the injured employé, while temporarily working outside of the state, will be represented in the employer's contribution to the fund.
The scheme of the statute is, in brief, to charge upon the business, through insurance, the losses caused by it, making the business and the ultimate consumer of its product, and not the injured employé, bear the burden of the accidents incident to the business. The statute contemplates the protection, not only of the employé, but of the employer, at the expense of the ultimate consumer. See In re Winfield, Employé, v. New York Central & H. R. R. Co., 153 N. Y. Supp. 499, decided at this term. The employé cannot refuse to do the master's bidding within the course of the employment upon the grounds that it requires him to pass over the state line, and the law cannot contemplate that he shall lose the benefit of the act because he is performing the duties of his employment. The statute must have a broad and liberal interpretation, to protect the employé for all injuries received in the course of the employment, and to charge upon the fund or the insurer the loss which otherwise must fall upon the master. By complying with the act, the employer is guaranteed protection, and the moneys which he has paid into the fund, or secured to be paid, must bear the losses which they were intended to meet; otherwise, the employer and the employé are suffering at the hands of the state.
In the McQueeney Case and the Winfield Case we considered that the self-insurer, or the employer who insured otherwise than in the state fund, has no advantage or disadvantage in the construction of the statute from the fact that he insured otherwise than in the state fund. The law contemplates equality, and that all employés and employers shall be measured by the same rule, without regard to the particular manner in which the insurance is carried.
The award should be affirmed. All concur, except