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

108 N.Y.S. 525

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 108 N.Y.S. 525 (Fouquet v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) 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

Fouquet v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 108 N.Y.S. 525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

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, New York City, [526]*526where 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 employés 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. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 488, affirmed 74 N. Y. 617, without opinion; McDonald v. Simpson Crawford Co., 114 App. Div. 859, 100 N. Y. Supp. 269; Wright v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 564; Vick v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 95 N. Y. 267, 47 Am. Rep. 36; Spees v. Boggs, 198 Pa. 112, 47 Atl. 875, 52 L. R. A. 933, 82 Am. St. Rep. 792.

The judgment should be affirmed.

■Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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, New York City, [526]*526where 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 employés 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. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 488, affirmed 74 N. Y. 617, without opinion; McDonald v. Simpson Crawford Co., 114 App. Div. 859, 100 N. Y. Supp. 269; Wright v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 564; Vick v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 95 N. Y. 267, 47 Am. Rep. 36; Spees v. Boggs, 198 Pa. 112, 47 Atl. 875, 52 L. R. A. 933, 82 Am. St. Rep. 792.

The judgment should be affirmed.

■Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 N.Y.S. 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fouquet-v-new-york-central-hudson-river-railroad-nyappdiv-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack