Clayton v. Tottenville Shipyard Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clayton v. Tottenville Shipyard Co.

219 A.D. 742

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 219 A.D. 742 (Clayton v. Tottenville Shipyard 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

Clayton v. Tottenville Shipyard Co., 219 A.D. 742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. We are of opinion that there was evidence from which the jury could say that had defendant made an examination of the bolt which pulled out, it would have been found in a loosened condition, and from which the very result here in question might have been reasonably anticipated. Moreover, the float was an appliance of defendant, and was furnished to the decedent for his work, in which respect the case differs from the eases of stevedores placing their workmen on ships owned by some one else where the same degree of inspection is not required of a master who furnishes to his employees his own appliances and the places to work. Jaycox, Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur; Kelly, P. J., dissents upon the ground that there was no evidence to show that inspection by defendant would have disclosed any fault in the ringbolt. (Liverani v. Clark & Son, 231 N. Y. 178.)

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. We are of opinion that there was evidence from which the jury could say that had defendant made an examination of the bolt which pulled out, it would have been found in a loosened condition, and from which the very result here in question might have been reasonably anticipated. Moreover, the float was an appliance of defendant, and was furnished to the decedent for his work, in which respect the case differs from the eases of stevedores placing their workmen on ships owned by some one else where the same degree of inspection is not required of a master who furnishes to his employees his own appliances and the places to work. Jaycox, Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur; Kelly, P. J., dissents upon the ground that there was no evidence to show that inspection by defendant would have disclosed any fault in the ringbolt. (Liverani v. Clark & Son, 231 N. Y. 178.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D. 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayton-v-tottenville-shipyard-co-nyappdiv-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack