Korber v. J. Ottman Lithographing Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Korber v. J. Ottman Lithographing Co.

49 Misc. 462, 97 N.Y.S. 1044

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 Misc. 462 (Korber v. J. Ottman Lithographing Co.) 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

Korber v. J. Ottman Lithographing Co., 49 Misc. 462, 97 N.Y.S. 1044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Giegerich, J.

I cannot distinguish this case from Hussey v. Coger, 112 N. Y. 614; and Crispin v. Babbitt, 81 id. 516.

Although the superintendent might have been the representative of the defendant corporation in all matters which it was the master’s duty to perform, still his act in negligently holding, or failing to hold, the ladder on which the plaintiff was standing at the time of the accident was not an act which pertained to the duty of a master to perform, but was the act of a fellow servant, like the act of the superintendent in the Hussey case, in leaving the hatch open, and the Crispin case, in starting the machinery while the plaintiff was in a position of danger.

The order should be reversed, with costs an(3 disbursements to appellant, and motion granted.

Scott and Gbeehbaum, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, with costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion granted.

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

Giegerich, J.

I cannot distinguish this case from Hussey v. Coger, 112 N. Y. 614; and Crispin v. Babbitt, 81 id. 516.

Although the superintendent might have been the representative of the defendant corporation in all matters which it was the master’s duty to perform, still his act in negligently holding, or failing to hold, the ladder on which the plaintiff was standing at the time of the accident was not an act which pertained to the duty of a master to perform, but was the act of a fellow servant, like the act of the superintendent in the Hussey case, in leaving the hatch open, and the Crispin case, in starting the machinery while the plaintiff was in a position of danger.

The order should be reversed, with costs an(3 disbursements to appellant, and motion granted.

Scott and Gbeehbaum, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, with costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Misc. 462, 97 N.Y.S. 1044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/korber-v-j-ottman-lithographing-co-nyappterm-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack