Kavanagh v. Vollmer

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kavanagh v. Vollmer

84 N.Y.S. 475

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 6, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 475 (Kavanagh v. Vollmer) 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

Kavanagh v. Vollmer, 84 N.Y.S. 475 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

The plaintiff was injured through a fall upon the sidewalk, due to the presence of ice formed through the use of water, by the defendant’s servant when cleaning the sidewalk opposite defendant’s premises, and it is conceded that the judgment is correct if upon the evidence the defendant is to be held chargeable for the servant’s use of water upon the sidewalk. The proof discloses that sweeping the sidewalk was among the duties of this servant, and therefore the question whether or not the law imposed a duty upon the owner of the premises to have this work performed is immaterial. It suffices that this was a duty of the servant, and, whether imposed by the employer from personal taste or for some other reason, the obligation arising from the relation of master and servant remained the same. While the defendant did not direct the use of water, the servant made use of it, not in the course of a departure from her duties, but simply because she saw other servants do the same thing and to facilitate the cleaning. Pier general duty being to sweep, and the' object of sweeping being to clean, the use of water for that object, and conOededly to no other end, was within the scope of the employment, under well-settled rules. P. Cox Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Gorsline, 63 App. Div. 517, 71 N. Y. Supp. 619, and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

The plaintiff was injured through a fall upon the sidewalk, due to the presence of ice formed through the use of water, by the defendant’s servant when cleaning the sidewalk opposite defendant’s premises, and it is conceded that the judgment is correct if upon the evidence the defendant is to be held chargeable for the servant’s use of water upon the sidewalk. The proof discloses that sweeping the sidewalk was among the duties of this servant, and therefore the question whether or not the law imposed a duty upon the owner of the premises to have this work performed is immaterial. It suffices that this was a duty of the servant, and, whether imposed by the employer from personal taste or for some other reason, the obligation arising from the relation of master and servant remained the same. While the defendant did not direct the use of water, the servant made use of it, not in the course of a departure from her duties, but simply because she saw other servants do the same thing and to facilitate the cleaning. Pier general duty being to sweep, and the' object of sweeping being to clean, the use of water for that object, and conOededly to no other end, was within the scope of the employment, under well-settled rules. P. Cox Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Gorsline, 63 App. Div. 517, 71 N. Y. Supp. 619, and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kavanagh-v-vollmer-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack