Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Ward & Gow: Workers’ Compensation Coverage Could Follow the Employer’s Hazardous Business

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 1, 2026 · Updated October 17, 2026

Decision: Ward & Gow v. Krinsky, 259 U.S. 503 (1922).

Ward & Gow v. Krinsky, decided June 5, 1922, concerned a newsstand salesman injured in a subway station. Ward & Gow sold advertising space and operated vending booths on New York railway platforms. Himan Krinsky was struck by a train while emptying a water pail used at his booth. The case concerned New York’s former compensation statute, not California’s current coverage rules.

The statute classified the employer’s business

New York’s Group 45 extended coverage to businesses employing four or more workmen or operatives, with specified exceptions. The state courts read the law to protect other employees in the same business too. Krinsky worked separately from the employer’s porters and chauffeurs, but that separation did not place him outside the statute. Ward & Gow, 259 U.S. at 506–510.

Different duties did not defeat coverage

Workers did not have to perform the characteristic hazardous operation themselves when their duties were part of conducting the classified business.

The classification was constitutionally permissible

The legislature could address industrial risks through reasonable occupational categories without proving identical danger for every covered task.

The award was sustained

The Supreme Court accepted the New York courts’ interpretation of their statute and decided the federal constitutional question. Applying that interpretation to Krinsky did not violate due process or equal protection. The judgment sustaining his award was affirmed. Ward & Gow, 259 U.S. at 510, 516–526.

Key takeaways

• Start with the governing statute’s employer and employee definitions.
• Analyze how the worker’s duties relate to the covered enterprise.
• Separate statutory construction from constitutional classification.
• Check current jurisdiction-specific coverage rules.