Feroldi v. George Vassar's Sons & Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Feroldi v. George Vassar's Sons & Co.

130 N.Y.S. 112

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 29, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 130 N.Y.S. 112 (Feroldi v. George Vassar's Sons & 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

Feroldi v. George Vassar's Sons & Co., 130 N.Y.S. 112 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries which the plaintiff claims he sustained while in the defendant’s employ. It is unnecessary to review the facts, as we think that the defendant’s exception to the charge of the court presents the only question requiring comment.

The chief point in issue was whether one Walsh was a superintendent, or whether he was a fellow servant of the plaintiff. It was within the province of the jury to determine this issue. The charge of the court, by withdrawing from the consideration of the jury the question as to whether Walsh was a fellow servant, and his refusal to charge that, if the jury found that Walsh was a fellow servant, the plaintiff could not recover, decided the chief point in issue in favor of the plaintiff as a matter of law. This erroneous ruling was necessarily prejudicial to the defendant, and requires that the action should be retried.

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

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

SEABURY, J.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries which the plaintiff claims he sustained while in the defendant’s employ. It is unnecessary to review the facts, as we think that the defendant’s exception to the charge of the court presents the only question requiring comment.

The chief point in issue was whether one Walsh was a superintendent, or whether he was a fellow servant of the plaintiff. It was within the province of the jury to determine this issue. The charge of the court, by withdrawing from the consideration of the jury the question as to whether Walsh was a fellow servant, and his refusal to charge that, if the jury found that Walsh was a fellow servant, the plaintiff could not recover, decided the chief point in issue in favor of the plaintiff as a matter of law. This erroneous ruling was necessarily prejudicial to the defendant, and requires that the action should be retried.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 N.Y.S. 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feroldi-v-george-vassars-sons-co-nyappterm-1911.