New York Law Review

Tag: traveling employee

  • Capizzi v. Southern District Reporters, Inc., 61 N.Y.2d 52 (1984): Compensability of Injuries During Reasonable Activities While Traveling for Work

    Capizzi v. Southern District Reporters, Inc., 61 N.Y.2d 52 (1984)

    Injuries sustained by an employee while traveling for work and engaging in reasonable activities attendant to their employment, even if not directly related to their duties, are compensable under workers’ compensation.

    Summary

    Nelida Capizzi, a transcriber-typist, was sent on a business trip to Toronto by her employer. While preparing for her return to New York, she slipped and fell in her hotel bathtub. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded her benefits, finding the injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. The Appellate Division reversed, deeming showering a purely personal act. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding the injury compensable because Capizzi was required to travel and stay in a new environment for work, increasing her risk of injury while engaging in a reasonable activity attendant to her employment.

    Facts

    Nelida Capizzi was employed by Southern District Reporters, Inc. On December 30, 1980, she and four co-workers were sent to Toronto, Canada, to transcribe depositions. The hearings were suspended later that evening for the New Year’s holiday. The following morning, at approximately 7:00 a.m., Capizzi slipped and fell while stepping into the hotel bathtub to shower in preparation for her return trip to New York. As a result, she sustained injuries and filed for workers’ compensation benefits.

    Procedural History

    The workers’ compensation law judge initially found that accident, notice, and causal relationship were established. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, finding that Capizzi was required to travel to Toronto for her employer’s business and was directed to remain there for a specific time, maintaining her employee status throughout the trip. The Appellate Division reversed, holding the injury noncompensable as a purely personal act. The Workers’ Compensation Board appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether an injury sustained by a traveling employee due to a slip and fall while showering in a hotel room arises out of and in the course of employment, making it compensable under workers’ compensation.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because Capizzi was required to travel and stay in a new environment for work, which increased her risk of injury while engaging in a reasonable activity attendant to her employment.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that while traditionally, injuries were compensable only when an employee was actively furthering their employer’s business, this has expanded to acknowledge the increased risk to traveling employees. Quoting Matter of Davis v Newsweek Mag., 305 NY 20, 27-28, the court stated that when an employee is “directed, as part of his duties, to remain in a particular place or locality * * * for a specified length of time * * * the rule applied is simply that the employee is not expected to wait immobile, but may indulge in any reasonable activity at that place, and if he does so the risk inherent in such activity is an incident of his employment.” The court acknowledged past distinctions made regarding bathing or dressing injuries, deeming them purely personal and non-compensable. However, the court found it difficult to reconcile these decisions with cases awarding compensation for injuries sustained during other “personal acts” while traveling, such as slipping on a sidewalk after dinner (Matter of Schreiber v Revlon Prods. Corp., 5 AD2d 207), or injuries sustained while bathing on the employer’s premises (Matter of Marco v News Syndicate Co., 257 App Div 887). The court concluded that the claimant was required to work and stay at a place distant from home, increasing her risk of injury and engaging in a reasonable activity (showering) attendant to her employment. Therefore, the injury was compensable.

  • Matter of Koerner v. Prestige Point, Inc., 22 N.Y.2d 540 (1968): Limits to ‘Work Connected’ Injuries for Traveling Employees

    Matter of Koerner v. Prestige Point, Inc., 22 N.Y.2d 540 (1968)

    An injury sustained by a traveling employee is not compensable under workers’ compensation if the injury is solely attributable to the employee’s personal act and not to any environmental factor related to the employment.

    Summary

    Koerner, a traveling salesman, sought worker’s compensation benefits for a back injury sustained while he was on a business trip. The injury occurred in his motel room when he lost his balance while putting on his trousers. The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded benefits, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the injury was not work-connected because it was solely the result of the claimant’s personal act and not linked to any environmental factor arising from his employment. The court distinguished cases involving household employees and those where the work environment contributed to the injury.

    Facts

    The claimant, a traveling salesman, was on a business trip in Chicago and was scheduled to travel to Duluth, Minnesota. While dressing in his motel room at 8:30 a.m., he was rushing to get ready and begin driving. He lost his balance and fell while putting on his trousers, resulting in back injuries.

    Procedural History

    The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded compensation to the claimant. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that the injury was work-connected as a question of fact. The employer appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a traveling employee’s injury, sustained while performing a personal act (dressing) in a motel room during a business trip, is compensable under workers’ compensation when the injury is not attributable to any environmental factor related to the employment.

    Holding

    No, because the injury was solely attributable to the claimant’s personal act of losing balance while dressing and was not caused by any environmental factor associated with his employment.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from prior cases where injuries to traveling employees were deemed compensable because those cases involved an environmental factor related to the employment (e.g., slipping in a bathtub, insect bites in a particular region, or unique risks associated with living at the place of employment). The court emphasized that “for compensation purposes an injury suffered by an employee while out of town on the business of his employer may be ‘work connected’ even where the employee at the time of the accident was not actively engaged in the duties of his employment.” However, the court drew a line, stating, “Where an accident is attributable solely to the personal acts of the claimant, and cannot be attributed in any way to the environment into which the employee has been brought by his employment…such injury or death ought to be held noncompensable.” The court noted that the accident could have occurred anywhere, and the motel room itself did not contribute to the injury. The court also declined to extend the special exception afforded to household employees (where virtually any injury is compensable) to other classes of employees. The court distinguished cases like Matter of Miller v. Bartlett Tree Expert Co., 3 Y 2d 654 (employee slipped in a bathtub) arguing in those cases, the injury was due at least in part, to an environmental factor. In Koerner, the sole cause was the claimant’s loss of balance.