Case Name: DE LA GARDELLE v. HAMPTON CO. et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-05-05
Citations: 153 N.Y.S. 162
Docket Number: No. 57-36
Parties: DE LA GARDELLE v. HAMPTON CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 153
Pages: 162–164

Head Matter:
DE LA GARDELLE v. HAMPTON CO. et al.
(No. 57-36.)
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
May 5, 1915.)
Master and Servant <S^87%, New, vol. 16 Iiey-No. Series—Workmen's Compensation Law—“Hazardous Employment”—“Preparation.”
A butcher or assistant chef in a hotel, whose duty is to distribute meats to the cooks as ordered, whose knife accidentally slipped, while boning a leg of mutton on the butcher block, and severed an artery in his groin, resulting in hemorrhage and death, was not within Workmen’s Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 67; Laws 1913, c. 816, as re-enacted and amended by chapter 41, Laws 1914, and by chapter 316, Laws 1914), § 2, groups 30 and 33, declaring the manufacture or preparation of meats or meat products and the canning or preparation of foodstuffs to be “hazardous employment,” for injury in which such compensation shall be payable ; since the word “preparation” does not mean the ordinary preparation of meat and foodstuff for cooking purposes, but involves a preparation by some mechanical device, or a preparation which either changes the form or the nature of the material to render it suitable for use.
[Ed. Note—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Preparation.]
jFor other cases'see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
In the matter of the claim of Anna de la Gardelle for compensation to herself and child, under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, for the death of Peter de la Gardelle, against the Hampton Company, employer, and Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, insurer. From a determination of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission denying the claim, claimant appeals.
Determination affirmed.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, LYON, HOWARD, and WOODWARD, JJ.
Joseph M. Gazzam, of New York City, for claimant appellant.
Jeremiah E. Connor, of New York City, for State Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
Egburt E. Woodbury, Atty. Gen.
Walter G. Evans, of New York City, for respondents Hampton Co. and Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland.

Opinion:
LYON, J.
The deceased was employed as a butcher, or assistant to the chef, at the Hampton Hotel, in Albany. His duty was the distribution of meats to the cooks as ordered. While boning a leg of mutton on the butcher block, his knife accidentally slipped and severed an artery in his groin, resulting in femoral hemorrhage, causing his death.
Concededly, his death arose out of and in the course of his employment, and was not occasioned by any of the excepted causes stated in the Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 67; Laws of 1913, c. 816, as re-enacted and amended by chapter 41, Laws of 1914, and amended by chapter 316, Laws of 1914).
The Hampton Company had secured compensation to its employes by insuring with the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland. His widow, as dependent upon her husband for support at the time of his death, presented^ claim for compensation. After a hearing duly had, the Compensation Commission, holding that the deceased was not engaged in a hazardous employment within the meaning of the state Workmen's Compensation Law, unanimously denied the claim of the widow for compensation. From such decision, this appeal has been taken.
The appellant contends that the deceased was engaged in a hazardous employment embraced within groups 30 and 33 of the Workmen's Compensation Law, which read as follows:
"Group 30. Packing houses, abattoirs, manufacture or preparation of meats, or meat products, or glue."
"Group 33. Canning or preparation of fruit, vegetables, fish, or foodstuffs; pickle factories and sugar refineries."
It was the opinion of the commission that the preparation of meats, and the preparation of foodstuffs, as the word "preparation" was used in section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Law, did not mean the ordinary preparation of meat or foodstuffs for cooking purposes, but involved a preparation by some mechanical device, or a preparation which either changed the form of the material to render it suitable for use, or changed the nature of the material for the same purpose. Under this construction of the law, the commission denied the claim of appellant for compensation.
We think the claimant was not entitled to compensation, and that the determination of the Workmen's Compensation Commission should be affirmed, but without costs. All concur.