Case Name: Before State Industrial Commission, Respondent. In the Matter of the Claim of Elizabeth Kehoe, Widow, Respondent, for Compensation to Herself under the Workmen's Compensation Law, for the Death of John Kehoe, v. Consolidated Telegraph and Electrical Subway Company, Employer and Self Insurer, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-12-28
Citations: 176 A.D. 84
Docket Number: 
Parties: Before State Industrial Commission, Respondent. In the Matter of the Claim of Elizabeth Kehoe, Widow, Respondent, for Compensation to Herself under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, for the Death of John Kehoe, v. Consolidated Telegraph and Electrical Subway Company, Employer and Self Insurer, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 176
Pages: 84–87

Head Matter:
Before State Industrial Commission, Respondent. In the Matter of the Claim of Elizabeth Kehoe, Widow, Respondent, for Compensation to Herself under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, for the Death of John Kehoe, v. Consolidated Telegraph and Electrical Subway Company, Employer and Self Insurer, Appellant.
Third Department,
December 28, 1916.
Workmen’s Compensation Law — death of watchman caused by escaping gas — employment not hazardous— “employee ” defined.
A person who was employed by a company constructing electrical conduits merely as a watchman to clean and guard an office used solely for the storage of tools and materials and who had no other duty to perform was not engaged in a hazardous employment, and where he was killed in said office by gas which escaped from a pipe leading to a gas heater which had become disconnected his dependents are not entitled to an award under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and this is true although the employer’s business was hazardous within the statute. Moreover, being merely engaged as a watchman and in no way exposed to the hazards of his employer’s business, he was not an “ employee ” within the contemplation of the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
Kellogg, P. J., and Howard, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, Consolidated Telegraph and Electrical Subway Company, from an award of the State Industrial Commission, entered in the office of said Commission on the 19th day of July, 1916, and also from an amended award, entered on the 10th day of August, 1916.
Beardsley, Hemmens & Taylor [Thomas H. Beardsley of counsel], for the appellant.
Egburt E. Woodbury, Attorney-General [E. C. Aiken, Deputy Attorney-General, of counsel], and Robert W. Bonynge, counsel for the State Industrial Commission, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Lyon, J.:
John Kehoe, deceased, the husband of the claimant, was employed by the Consolidated Telegraph and Electrical Subway Company, a corporation engaged in the business of constructing electrical conduits, as a watchman at its store yard in the city of New York. His duties were to sweep and mop out the office and to keep the drivers in the employ of the company out of the toolhouse. No pipes were laid or repaired there, and the tools were not used there. The yard was also used for the storage of tools and of materials, both of which were taken out and used on the work elsewhere, in connection with which the deceased had no duty to perform.
On the afternoon of April 30, 1916, he was found dead in the office. An examination of the premises disclosed gas escaping from the disconnected supply pipe leading to the gas heater, and that his death occurred from gas poisoning. The Commission awarded compensation to the widow of the deceased, and also an allowance for funeral expenses. From such award the employer appeals.
We think the award should not have been made. Concededly, the business which the employer was carrying on was a hazardous one within the Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 67; Laws of 1914, chap. 41). However, the deceased was employed simply as a watchman at the tools and materials storage plant where none of the business of the employer was being carried on, and he was in no way exposed to the hazards of the employer's business. He was not an " employee " within the contemplation of the Workmen's Compensation Law. Section 3, subdivision 4, defines an "employee " as a person who is engaged in a hazardous employment. This the deceased was not, and hence the claimant was not entitled to the award. (Matter of Newman v. Newman, 218 N. Y. 325; Matter of Bargey v. Massaro Macaroni Co., Id. 411; Brown v. Richmond Light & Railroad Co., 173 App. Div. 432; Mandel v. Steinhardt & Bro., Inc., Id. 515.)
The award should, therefore, be reversed.
All concurred, except Kellogg, P. J., who dissented in a memorandum in which Howard, J., concurred.