Farrelly v. John A. Roebling's Sons Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farrelly v. John A. Roebling's Sons Co.

245 A.D. 45, 280 N.Y.S. 399, 1935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10218

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

DecidedMay 28, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D. 45 (Farrelly v. John A. Roebling's Sons 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

Farrelly v. John A. Roebling's Sons Co., 245 A.D. 45, 280 N.Y.S. 399, 1935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The nonsuit was based upon the contributory negligence of plaintiff. The record does not make very clear the movements of the crane and shovel in reference to the car that was being unloaded. Drawings were made on a blackboard and referred to in the testimony, but the drawings Were not introduced in evidence. How much opportunity plaintiff had for keeping at all times in a place of safety does not clearly appear. From the record it would appear that, at most, plaintiff’s negligence consisted of being too vigilant in returning to the end of the car where his work called him before the shovel had moved away from the point overhead where it was a source of possible danger, and in doing this contrary to instructions. Whether, under all the circumstances of the case, as shown by this record, plaintiff’s diligence in his work constitutes negligence is fairly a question for the jury.

All concur, except Edgcomb, J., who dissents and votes for affirmance. Present — Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

The nonsuit was based upon the contributory negligence of plaintiff. The record does not make very clear the movements of the crane and shovel in reference to the car that was being unloaded. Drawings were made on a blackboard and referred to in the testimony, but the drawings Were not introduced in evidence. How much opportunity plaintiff had for keeping at all times in a place of safety does not clearly appear. From the record it would appear that, at most, plaintiff’s negligence consisted of being too vigilant in returning to the end of the car where his work called him before the shovel had moved away from the point overhead where it was a source of possible danger, and in doing this contrary to instructions. Whether, under all the circumstances of the case, as shown by this record, plaintiff’s diligence in his work constitutes negligence is fairly a question for the jury.

All concur, except Edgcomb, J., who dissents and votes for affirmance. Present — Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D. 45, 280 N.Y.S. 399, 1935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrelly-v-john-a-roeblings-sons-co-nyappdiv-1935.