Ernest Missone v. Jarka Corporation

Second Circuit

Ernest Missone v. Jarka Corporation

274 F.2d 204, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5488

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 28, 1960

Docket139, Docket 25800

StatusPublished

This text of 274 F.2d 204 (Ernest Missone v. Jarka Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ernest Missone v. Jarka Corporation, 274 F.2d 204, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5488 (2d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellee, a marine carpenter in the employ of a third person, *205 working on a pier owned and operated by defendant-appellant, sustained injuries when his hand was caught in the apparatus used there to open and close a pair of sliding metal doors. He brought suit alleging his injuries were caused by defendant’s negligence. Trial was before Judge Rayfiel and a jury. A verdict was returned for plaintiff in the amount of $13,500.

First, defendant contends that, on plaintiff’s evidence, the allegedly dangerous condition of the doors could have no relation to plaintiff’s injuries. Judge Rayfiel ruled that the evidence was sufficient to take this question to the jury. We agree with this ruling. Second, defendant contends that, prior to the accident, it had not been notified of the dangerous condition. However, not only was there evidence that defendant’s agent had received a complaint concerning the condition of the doors one day prior to the accident, but there was also evidence that the dangerous condition had existed for a year prior to the accident, thus charging defendant with constructive notice of this condition.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellee, a marine carpenter in the employ of a third person, *205 working on a pier owned and operated by defendant-appellant, sustained injuries when his hand was caught in the apparatus used there to open and close a pair of sliding metal doors. He brought suit alleging his injuries were caused by defendant’s negligence. Trial was before Judge Rayfiel and a jury. A verdict was returned for plaintiff in the amount of $13,500.

First, defendant contends that, on plaintiff’s evidence, the allegedly dangerous condition of the doors could have no relation to plaintiff’s injuries. Judge Rayfiel ruled that the evidence was sufficient to take this question to the jury. We agree with this ruling. Second, defendant contends that, prior to the accident, it had not been notified of the dangerous condition. However, not only was there evidence that defendant’s agent had received a complaint concerning the condition of the doors one day prior to the accident, but there was also evidence that the dangerous condition had existed for a year prior to the accident, thus charging defendant with constructive notice of this condition.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 F.2d 204, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-missone-v-jarka-corporation-ca2-1960.