Graham v. Laughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Graham v. Laughlin

246 A.D. 652

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D. 652 (Graham v. Laughlin) 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

Graham v. Laughlin, 246 A.D. 652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff was in the employ of defendants as a cook and general houseworker. On October 18, 1934, she was directed by her employers to clean a cornice in the parlor. In doing so it was necessary for her to use a stepladder. Her employer directed her to collapse the ladder. The floor on which it rested was polished mahogany. When plaintiff ascended the ladder and while attempting to clean the cornice the ladder slipped and she fell to the floor, sustaining injuries. Her complaint charges negligence in failing to provide a safe place to work and also alleges a cause of action under the Employers’ Liability Act. The Employers’ Liability Act, however, does not apply. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ., concur.

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

Plaintiff was in the employ of defendants as a cook and general houseworker. On October 18, 1934, she was directed by her employers to clean a cornice in the parlor. In doing so it was necessary for her to use a stepladder. Her employer directed her to collapse the ladder. The floor on which it rested was polished mahogany. When plaintiff ascended the ladder and while attempting to clean the cornice the ladder slipped and she fell to the floor, sustaining injuries. Her complaint charges negligence in failing to provide a safe place to work and also alleges a cause of action under the Employers’ Liability Act. The Employers’ Liability Act, however, does not apply. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-laughlin-nyappdiv-1935.