Case Name: Before State Industrial Commission, Respondent. In the Matter of the Claim of Mary A. Cummings, Respondent, for Compensation to Herself under the Workmen's Compensation Law, for the Death of Peter Cummings, Her Husband, against Underwood Silk Fabric Company, Inc., Employer, and The Travelers Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1918-09-11
Citations: 184 A.D. 456
Docket Number: 
Parties: Before State Industrial Commission, Respondent. In the Matter of the Claim of Mary A. Cummings, Respondent, for Compensation to Herself under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, for the Death of Peter Cummings, Her Husband, against Underwood Silk Fabric Company, Inc., Employer, and The Travelers Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 184
Pages: 456–461

Head Matter:
Before State Industrial Commission, Respondent. In the Matter of the Claim of Mary A. Cummings, Respondent, for Compensation to Herself under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, for the Death of Peter Cummings, Her Husband, against Underwood Silk Fabric Company, Inc., Employer, and The Travelers Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier, Appellants.
Third Department,
September 11, 1918.
Workmen’s Compensation Law—“employee” within meaning of subdivision 4 of section 3 — casual employee in service of employer engaged in hazardous employment — independent contractor.
An employee in the service of an employer whose principal business is that of carrying on or conducting a hazardous employment is, since the amendment of 1916, an “ employee ” within the meaning of subdivision 4 of section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
A mechanic employed by a company engaged in a hazardous business to erect a smokestack, who furnished appliances and what help he might need in addition to two men assigned to the work by his employer, was not an independent contractor.
Lyon and H. T. Kellogg, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendants, Underwood Silk Fabric Company, Inc., and another, from an award of the State Industrial Commission, entered in the office of said Commission on the 20th day of April, 1917.
Amos H. Stephens [E. Clyde Sherwood and William B. Davis, of counsel] for the appellants.
Merton E. Lewis, Attorney-General [E. C. Aiken, Deputy Attorney-General, of counsel], Robert W. Bonynge, counsel for State Industrial Commission, and R. H. Brown, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Woodward, J.:
The death of the employee resulted from an accidental injury September 16, 1916, at the plant where a hazardous employment was carried on by the employer. He was, therefore, an employee within the meaning of subdivision 4 of section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 67; Laws of 1914, chap. 41), as amended by chapter 622 of the Laws of 1916. (Matter of Dose v. Moehle Lithographic Co., 221 N. Y. 401; Matter of McNally v. Diamond Mills Paper Co., 223 id. 83.)
In Solomon v. Bonis (181 App. Div. 672; affd., 223 N. Y. 689) the injury occurred in a non-hazardous employment. It is not, therefore, an authority here.
Since the amendment of 1916 a casual employee in the service of an employer whose principal business is that of carrying on or conducting a hazardous employment, is within the act. Under the circumstances of this case, the decedent was not an independent contractor, but in the ordinary employ of the appellant employer.
I am not unmindful of the difficulty in reaching correct decisions in the phase of the Workmen's Compensation Law here presented; but, after a careful study of the authorities, I am persuaded that both law and justice require an affirmance and I so recommend.
All concurred, except Lyon, J., dissenting in opinion, in which H. T. Kellogg' J., concurred.