## Facts

- On June 25, 1970, Christopher O’Rourke, a minor, was illegally employed delivering newspapers for the Long Island Press.
- While on his delivery route, O’Rourke rode a bicycle.
- During the route, he stopped at an ice cream truck; as he returned to his bicycle from the truck, he was struck by a vehicle and injured.
- On October 5, 1970, a workers’ compensation claim was filed with the Workmen’s Compensation Board on O’Rourke’s behalf.
- A compensation check was issued to O’Rourke but his counsel returned it to the insurance carrier.
- O’Rourke and his father sued in a plenary action seeking damages against the Long Island Press, the owner/operator of the ice cream truck, and the owner of the vehicle that struck him.
- At trial, the case was settled as to all defendants except the Long Island Press.
- The trial court dismissed the action against the Long Island Press, finding insufficient proof of a causal connection between the illegal employment and the accident.
- The Appellate Division affirmed without opinion, and the O’Rourkes appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs produced sufficient proof that O’Rourke’s injuries “resulted from” (were causally connected to) his illegal employment delivering newspapers.
2. Whether filing a workers’ compensation claim—where the issued check was returned—barred the plaintiffs from maintaining a plenary tort action against the employer.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and allowed the plaintiffs’ claim against the Long Island Press to proceed.
- The court held that the evidence permitted a finding that the injury resulted from the illegal employment because the work placed the minor in the circumstances that exposed him to the risk that materialized (street travel during the delivery route).
- The court also held that the compensation claim did not, on this record, operate as a bar to the plenary action where the plaintiffs did not accept compensation benefits (the check was returned).

## Legal Principles

- A statute imposing civil liability for illegal employment of a minor requires a causal link between the illegal employment and the injury, but the link may be shown where the employment placed the minor in the setting and activity that produced the harm.
- The causal-connection requirement is not defeated merely because a third party’s conduct was the immediate mechanism of injury, where the employment-related risk (such as street travel during deliveries) is part of the chain of causation.
- A worker’s compensation filing does not necessarily constitute an irrevocable election of remedies barring a civil action; acceptance or retention of compensation benefits is a significant factor in determining whether an election occurred.
- Returning a compensation check and not taking benefits supports the conclusion that the plaintiffs did not elect the compensation remedy to the exclusion of a plenary action.

## Conclusion

O’Rourke v. Long held that a minor injured while illegally employed as a newspaper carrier may proceed with a damages action against the employer when the proof supports a finding that the employment placed the minor in the circumstances leading to the accident, and that a workers’ compensation claim does not automatically bar the lawsuit where compensation benefits were not accepted.


O'Rourke v. Long, 359 N.E.2d 1347 (1976)