Arnold v. Buffalo Terminal Elevators, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arnold v. Buffalo Terminal Elevators, Inc.

25 A.D.2d 611, 267 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4883

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 611 (Arnold v. Buffalo Terminal Elevators, Inc.) 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

Arnold v. Buffalo Terminal Elevators, Inc., 25 A.D.2d 611, 267 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a now trial granted, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: The submission to the jury of section 23-3.28 of the Rules of State Industrial Code was reversible error. That section (as in effect at the time of the accident) by its specific language applied only to the duties of an employer in regard to protection of his employees against electrical shock. The Trial Justice charged that this section applied to the defendant owner and created obligations upon the owner similar to those established upon the part of the employer. This disregard of the specific language of section 23-3.28 (12 NYCRR 23.3 [b.b]) must have been based upon the theory that all safety provisions of the State Industrial Code were applicable to anyone having any part, directly or indirectly, in the operation involved. The courts have not so interpreted similar provisions of the Industrial Code. (Wright v. Belt Assoc., 14 N Y 2d 129, revg. 18 A D 2d 1137; Olsommer v. Walker & Sons, 4 A D 2d 424, affd. 4 N Y 2d 793; Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. De Cesare & Monaco Concrete Constr. Corp., 9 A D 2d 379.) (Appeal from judgment of Erie Trial Term fox plaintiff in a negligence action; also appeal from order denying motion for a new trial.)

Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry and D,el Yeechio, JJ.

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

Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a now trial granted, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: The submission to the jury of section 23-3.28 of the Rules of State Industrial Code was reversible error. That section (as in effect at the time of the accident) by its specific language applied only to the duties of an employer in regard to protection of his employees against electrical shock. The Trial Justice charged that this section applied to the defendant owner and created obligations upon the owner similar to those established upon the part of the employer. This disregard of the specific language of section 23-3.28 (12 NYCRR 23.3 [b.b]) must have been based upon the theory that all safety provisions of the State Industrial Code were applicable to anyone having any part, directly or indirectly, in the operation involved. The courts have not so interpreted similar provisions of the Industrial Code. (Wright v. Belt Assoc., 14 N Y 2d 129, revg. 18 A D 2d 1137; Olsommer v. Walker & Sons, 4 A D 2d 424, affd. 4 N Y 2d 793; Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. De Cesare & Monaco Concrete Constr. Corp., 9 A D 2d 379.) (Appeal from judgment of Erie Trial Term fox plaintiff in a negligence action; also appeal from order denying motion for a new trial.)

Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry and D,el Yeechio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 611, 267 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-buffalo-terminal-elevators-inc-nyappdiv-1966.