Case Name: WINTER v. PETER DOELGER BREWING CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-05-29
Citations: 159 N.Y.S. 113
Docket Number: 
Parties: WINTER v. PETER DOELGER BREWING CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 159
Pages: 113–115

Head Matter:
(95 Misc. Rep. 150)
WINTER v. PETER DOELGER BREWING CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
May 29, 1916.)
1. Evidence <$=>5(2)—Judicial Notice—Matter ojt Common Knowledge.
It is a matter of common knowledge that individuals and corporations operate and own, respectively, enterprises and properties entirely unrelated to and independent of one another.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 4; Dec. Dig. <8=»5(2).]
2. Master and Servant <$=3354—Injuries to Servant—Workmen’s Com-
pensation Law—Application.
Where the driver for a brewery, employed in delivering beer to a saloon keeper, was injured through the collapse of an elevator at the saloon premises, owned by the brewery, he could recover against his employer, exclusive of his remedy under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, since the law does not deprive an injured employs of Ms common-law remedy against a third person, by whose negligence he may be injured, though performing Ms duties under the terms of his employment, and where a servant is injured in the course of Ms employment through the negligence of his master, when the master is engaged in an enterprise altogether independent of the business in which the servant is employed, the master must be regarded as a third party.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. <$=>354.1
Guy, J., dissenting.
i^r^For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District.
Action by Rudolph Winter against the Peter Doelger Brewing Company. From a judgment dismissing his complaint, plaintiff appeals. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued May term, 1916,
before GUY, BIJUR, and COHALAN, JJ.
Walter A. Swett, of New York City (John J. McBride, of New York City, of counsel), fou app^Wit.
Frank J. O’Neill, of Sy-. ■< sse (Barent L. Visscher, of New York City, of counsel), fc>- - YnL

Opinion:
BIJUR, J.
Defeua...ye conducts a brewery. Plaintiff was one of its drivers, engaged "m delivering beer. While making such a delivery to a saloon keeper at premises entirely disconnected with the brewery, he was injured through the collapse of an elevator on said premises. Defendant happened to be the owner of these premises, and has succeed'gei in the court below on the plea that the remedy given by the Workmen's Compensation Law is exclusive.
The case of Lester v. Otis Elevator Co., 169 App. Div. 613,155 N. Y. Supp. 524, is determinative of the point that that law does not ieprive the injured employé of his common-law remedy against a third person, by whose negligence lie may be injured, although at the time he was pursuing his duties under the terms of his employment. It seems to me to follow as the inevitable corollary of that proposition that, if he be injured while in the course of his master's employment through the negligence of that master when the latter is engaged in an enterprise altogether independent of and unrelated to the business in which the servant is employed (i. e., in this case the ownership of separate real estate), tire master as to that enterprise must be regarded as a third party. It is a matter of common knowledge that individuals and corporations operate and own, respectively, enterprises and properties entirely unrelated to and independent of one another. The Workmen's Compensation Law was surely not intended to prevent an employé from recovering under the common law for negligence of a person or corporation merely because in an entirely different capacity and interest he or it happened to be the owner of such an independent enterprise or property. This, for example, would, it seems to me, be apparent, if the plaintiff, while engaged in the business of the brewery conducted by the defendant, happened to be injured through the negligence of officers of a steamboat plying on a route hundreds of miles from this city, merely because the steamboat was owned by the brewery corporation.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event.
COHALAN, J., concurs.