Andersen v. William Kennedy Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andersen v. William Kennedy Construction Co.

234 A.D. 865

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D. 865 (Andersen v. William Kennedy Construction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andersen v. William Kennedy Construction Co., 234 A.D. 865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. The request to charge at folio 601 was properly refused. The record permitted a finding that the defendant’s engineer, in the exercise of reasonable prudence, should have known of the likelihood of his bucket coming in contact with the shoring timber and that he could not rest entirely upon a signal to raise it. His knowledge of the timbers and their placement and spacing, coupled with the width of his bucket and the presence of his bucket cable, sufficed to require a duty not to be oblivious of the location of his bucket when being hoisted. With these factors the request to charge must be deemed to be incomplete. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Tompkins, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. The request to charge at folio 601 was properly refused. The record permitted a finding that the defendant’s engineer, in the exercise of reasonable prudence, should have known of the likelihood of his bucket coming in contact with the shoring timber and that he could not rest entirely upon a signal to raise it. His knowledge of the timbers and their placement and spacing, coupled with the width of his bucket and the presence of his bucket cable, sufficed to require a duty not to be oblivious of the location of his bucket when being hoisted. With these factors the request to charge must be deemed to be incomplete. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Tompkins, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D. 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andersen-v-william-kennedy-construction-co-nyappdiv-1931.