Matter of Wolfe v. Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co.
New York Court of Appeals
36 N.Y.2d 505, 369 N.Y.S.2d 637, 330 N.E.2d 603 (1975)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Diana Wolfe (plaintiff) was the secretary to the security director for Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Company (store) (defendant), a department store. The security director suffered from anxiety and depression associated with the pressures of his job, particularly around the holiday season. In 1971, the director’s condition did not seem to improve after the holidays. Wolfe tried to comfort her boss and advised him to see a doctor. The director also left work on one occasion, which Wolfe suggested because he seemed so nervous. On June 9, 1971, the director seemed much better. That day, the director called Wolfe on the intercom and asked her to call the police. Wolfe complied with the request but was then unable to reach the director on the intercom. Wolfe entered the director’s office and found the director lying in a pool of blood from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Wolfe then entered a period of depression resulting from trauma and feelings of guilt for not having prevented the director’s suicide. Wolfe was ultimately hospitalized for two months to receive psychotherapy and medication and was later readmitted for an additional three weeks to receive electroshock treatment. Wolfe returned to her job at the store in mid-January 1972. Wolfe’s workers’-compensation claim was granted by a referee and affirmed by the workers’-compensation board, but the appellate division reversed. Wolfe appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wachtler, J.)
Dissent (Breitel, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.