Case Name: Before State Industrial Board, Respondent. Mrs. Alice May Burch and Another, Respondents, v. Ramapo Iron Works and Another, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1924-11-13
Citations: 210 A.D. 506
Docket Number: 
Parties: Before State Industrial Board, Respondent. Mrs. Alice May Burch and Another, Respondents, v. Ramapo Iron Works and Another, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 210
Pages: 506–507

Head Matter:
Before State Industrial Board, Respondent. Mrs. Alice May Burch and Another, Respondents, v. Ramapo Iron Works and Another, Appellants.
Third Department,
November 13, 1924.
Workmen’s" compensation — claimant’s intestate at time of accident was engaged in work contrary to specific instruction of employer — injury did not arise out of and in course of employment.
Claimant’s intestate, who at the time of the accident was engaged in doing work which his employer had specifically instructed him on several occasions not to do, was not killed as the result of an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment.
Appeal by the defendants, Ramapo Iron Works and another, from an award of the State Industrial Board made on the 15th day of October, 1923, affirming a previous award made on the 11th day of September, 1922.
William H. Foster, for the appellants.
Carl Sherman, Attorney-General [E. C. Aiken, Deputy Attorney-General, of counsel], for the respondents.

Opinion:
H. T. Kellogg, J.:
The employee for whose death this claim "was filed, while pulling an iron clamp, by means of a long hook, from a furnace in the plant of his employer, was struck in the abdomen by the hook when it slipped from the clamp. The work to which the employee had been assigned consisted of operating an air hammer. His duties did not comprehend work in connection with the furnace. He had been repeatedly told by his foreman to stick to the hammer and do no other work. When the foreman saw him engaged in any other work he rebuked him and sent him back to his job. It appeared, therefore, that the employee was not doing work which he was employed to do when he received his injuries. Consequently, although his injuries may have been the cause of his death, they did not arise out of or in the course of his employment.
The award should be reversed and the claim dismissed.
All concur.
Award reversed and claim dismissed, with costs against the State Industrial Board.