Inkpen v. Safeway Steel Scaffolds Supply Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Inkpen v. Safeway Steel Scaffolds Supply Corp.

277 A.D.2d 775

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

DecidedMay 1, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 775 (Inkpen v. Safeway Steel Scaffolds Supply Corp.) 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

Inkpen v. Safeway Steel Scaffolds Supply Corp., 277 A.D.2d 775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action wherein plaintiff has recovered damages on the verdict of a jury, the defendant appeals from the judgment. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. The jury could find that the defendant designed the scaffold and sold the parts to build it according to the design. But plaintiff failed to establish that defendant was negligent in designing the scaffold which toppled over. Plaintiff cannot, as was properly charged, rely on any warranty. It was uncontradicted that a scaffold designed by defendant in the same fashion was employed by plaintiff’s employer more than five hundred times to do similar work, in the same manner, without going over, and that the one on which plaintiff was employed had been used six or seven times before plaintiff was injured. In any event, a new trial would be granted because in our opinion the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Carswell, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Sneed, J., concur for reversal of the judgment but dissent as to dismissal of the complaint and vote to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

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

In a negligence action wherein plaintiff has recovered damages on the verdict of a jury, the defendant appeals from the judgment. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. The jury could find that the defendant designed the scaffold and sold the parts to build it according to the design. But plaintiff failed to establish that defendant was negligent in designing the scaffold which toppled over. Plaintiff cannot, as was properly charged, rely on any warranty. It was uncontradicted that a scaffold designed by defendant in the same fashion was employed by plaintiff’s employer more than five hundred times to do similar work, in the same manner, without going over, and that the one on which plaintiff was employed had been used six or seven times before plaintiff was injured. In any event, a new trial would be granted because in our opinion the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Carswell, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Sneed, J., concur for reversal of the judgment but dissent as to dismissal of the complaint and vote to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inkpen-v-safeway-steel-scaffolds-supply-corp-nyappdiv-1950.