Carroda v. Foundation & Contracting Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Carroda v. Foundation & Contracting Co.

112 N.Y.S. 1082

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 24, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 112 N.Y.S. 1082 (Carroda v. Foundation & Contracting Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carroda v. Foundation & Contracting Co., 112 N.Y.S. 1082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant. We think the judgment must be reversed. The defendant’s negligence is predicated upon the claim that its foreman was incompetent and negligent. There is no evidence to show that the defendant failed to use ordinary care and caution in the selection [1083]*1083of its foreman. Even if it be assumed that the defendant was negr ligent in retaining the. foreman after his incompetence had been shown, the plaintiff’s contributory negligence precludes him from recovering in this action. The plaintiff had actual knowledge as to the manner in which the work was being done, under the direction of the foreman, and has entirely failed to establish his own freedom from negligence.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant. We think the judgment must be reversed. The defendant’s negligence is predicated upon the claim that its foreman was incompetent and negligent. There is no evidence to show that the defendant failed to use ordinary care and caution in the selection [1083]*1083of its foreman. Even if it be assumed that the defendant was negr ligent in retaining the. foreman after his incompetence had been shown, the plaintiff’s contributory negligence precludes him from recovering in this action. The plaintiff had actual knowledge as to the manner in which the work was being done, under the direction of the foreman, and has entirely failed to establish his own freedom from negligence.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 N.Y.S. 1082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroda-v-foundation-contracting-co-nyappterm-1908.