Fouquet v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fouquet v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

123 A.D. 804, 108 N.Y.S. 525, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 195

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 24, 1908·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as architectural draughtsman, and provided by it with a room upstairs in its building known as the Grand Central Station, Hew York city,'where its passenger trains come in and go out. He was hurt by the negligence of the elevator man, also employed by the defendant, while being carried up to his room by the elevator in said building, which is used by all of' the employees of the defendant who work in rooms or offices in the said building. The plaintiff and the elevator man were fellow servants (Ross v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 488; affirmed, 74 N. Y. 617, without opinion; McDonald v. Simpson-Crawford Co., 114 App. Div. 859; Wright v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 564; Vick v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 95 id. 267; Spees v. Boggs, 198 Penn. St. 112).

The judgment should be affirmed.

Present—Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.

Judgment and orde.r unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Gaynor, J.:

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as architectural draughtsman, and provided by it with a room upstairs in its building known as the Grand Central Station, Hew York city,'where its passenger trains come in and go out. He was hurt by the negligence of the elevator man, also employed by the defendant, while being carried up to his room by the elevator in said building, which is used by all of' the employees of the defendant who work in rooms or offices in the said building. The plaintiff and the elevator man were fellow servants (Ross v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 488; affirmed, 74 N. Y. 617, without opinion; McDonald v. Simpson-Crawford Co., 114 App. Div. 859; Wright v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 564; Vick v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 95 id. 267; Spees v. Boggs, 198 Penn. St. 112).

The judgment should be affirmed.

Present—Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.

Judgment and orde.r unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Fouquet v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 123 A.D. 804, 108 N.Y.S. 525, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

123 A.D. 804 (Fouquet v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related