67 N.Y.2d 246 (1986)
An employee’s injury is compensable under workers’ compensation even if sustained during an illegal act, provided the act is a reasonable and sufficiently work-related activity under the circumstances, and the employer has knowledge of and tolerates such activity.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a roofer’s death, occurring while stealing copper downspouts during work hours, was compensable under workers’ compensation. The court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s decision to award benefits, holding that the employee’s actions were within the scope of employment because the employer knew of and tolerated the practice of roofers stealing and selling scrap. The court reasoned that barring compensation would be inappropriate when the employer was aware of and permitted the illegal activity.
Facts
Norman Richardson, a roofer employed by Fiedler Roofing, Inc., died after falling from a roof. At the time of the accident, Richardson and a coworker were waiting for materials to arrive at their worksite. While waiting, they moved to another part of the building and removed copper downspouts to sell for scrap. Richardson slipped on ice and fell to his death during this activity.
Procedural History
The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision that the accident occurred during the course of Richardson’s employment and awarded benefits to his children. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision. The employer and its insurer appealed, arguing that Richardson’s death resulted from his theft, not his work duties.
Issue(s)
Whether an employee’s injury, sustained during an illegal act (theft) while technically on duty but waiting for materials, is compensable under Workers’ Compensation Law § 10, particularly when the employer knew of and tolerated such illegal acts.
Holding
Yes, because the Workers’ Compensation Board’s finding that the decedent’s actions did not constitute a deviation from employment was supported by substantial evidence, including the employer’s knowledge and tolerance of the practice of roofers stealing and selling scrap.
Court’s Reasoning
The court applied Workers’ Compensation Law § 10, which requires an injury to arise out of and in the course of employment to be compensable. While purely personal pursuits are generally excluded, the court noted that employees waiting for materials are not required to be idle and can engage in reasonable, work-related activities. The court emphasized that the determination of what is reasonable is factual, and the Board has wide latitude. The court found significant that the employer knew of the practice of stealing downspouts and had not disciplined employees for it. The court distinguished this situation from non-work-related injuries caused by illegal acts, for which disability benefits are expressly precluded under Workers’ Compensation Law § 205(3). The court emphasized the remedial nature of the Workers’ Compensation Law, which must be “construed liberally to accomplish the economic and humanitarian objects of the act” (Matter of Holcomb v Daily News, 45 N.Y.2d 602, 607). The court stated: “It is one thing to disqualify a claimant for injuries he sustains during the course of an illegal activity pursued on his own time, an activity unknown to the employer and one which it cannot control. It is quite another to deprive dependents of benefits because the employee’s death results from misconduct during the course of employment when the employer knows about the illegal activity and tolerates it”. The dissent argued that engaging in a larceny could never be a “reasonable” activity and that the employer’s tolerance does not make them responsible for injuries sustained during a crime.