Sullivan v. B & A Construction, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
120 N.E.2d 694 (1954)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Edward Sullivan (plaintiff) worked as a painter. In March of 1948, Sullivan injured his right knee while working for B & A Construction, Inc. (B & A) (defendant). In June of 1949, Sullivan injured his right knee again while working for A. L. Turner. As a result of the injuries, Sullivan experienced a locking sensation in his knee that left him unable to control his right leg. Sullivan sought and obtained workers’-compensation benefits for the knee injuries. Sullivan’s knee injuries also affected his ability to drive a car because Sullivan’s knee frequently locked when Sullivan tried to press on the brake. Sullivan continued to drive despite this concern, and he did not equip his car with a hand brake or left-foot brake. In June of 1950, Sullivan was driving on a personal errand at a relatively high speed when he lost control of his car. Sullivan tried to brake but was unable to do so because his knee locked. Sullivan’s car crashed into a tree, and he was injured. Sullivan sought to recover workers’-compensation benefits on the theory that the injuries from the car accident directly and naturally flowed from his previous compensable knee injuries. The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded Sullivan benefits, and the New York Appellate Division affirmed the award. B & A appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fuld, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.