. Florists' review [microform]. Floriculture. is'fetion and Le5^ Decision WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION. Applying the provision of the New York Workmen's Compensation Act, the New York Court of Appeals has de- cided that one employed by a florist to make deliveries by wagon is within the protection of the law while driving the wagon, but that no award may be made against the employer for injury acci- dentally sustained while engaged in a non-hazardous occupation, such as ar- ranging a window box. (Glatzl vs. Stumpp, 114 Northeastern Reporter, ) One Glatzl was employed by Stumpp, a New York city
. Florists' review [microform]. Floriculture. is'fetion and Le5^ Decision WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION. Applying the provision of the New York Workmen's Compensation Act, the New York Court of Appeals has de- cided that one employed by a florist to make deliveries by wagon is within the protection of the law while driving the wagon, but that no award may be made against the employer for injury acci- dentally sustained while engaged in a non-hazardous occupation, such as ar- ranging a window box. (Glatzl vs. Stumpp, 114 Northeastern Reporter, ) One Glatzl was employed by Stumpp, a New York city florist, as delivery- man. A delivery of flowers having been made to a customer, Glatzl proceeded to adjust a window box in the customer's house. For this purpose he mounted a ladder in front of the house, and, while working there, lost his balance and fell into an areaway, the box dropping on him. His thumb was lacerated and fractured, and, infection following, he died of tetanus. On application of the surviving de- pendent relatives, the State Industrial Commission made an award in their favor, and the Appellate Division of the Supreme court affirmed the allowance, but on further appeal to the Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, that tribunal reversed the award, say- ing: '' The Workmen 's Compensation law, in its enumeration of hazardous employ- ments covered by the act, mentions the following: " 'The operation, otherwise, tlian on tracks, on streets, highways, or else- where, of cars, trucks, wagons or other vehicles.' '' It has been said that the employer of Franz Glatzl was engaged in carrying on the business of a florist, wliich is not a hazardous employment, under the act, and that Glatzl, his employee, was not, therefore, protected in any degree by the statute. We do not accept that view. It is true that the business of florist is not mentioned in the act as a hazardous employment; but in this case, as incident to his business, the florist undertook
Size: 3385px × 738px
Photo credit: © Library Book Collection / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecad, booksubjectfloriculture, bookyear1912
