McLean v. Studebaker Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McLean v. Studebaker Bros.

168 A.D. 897

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

DecidedApril 15, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D. 897 (McLean v. Studebaker Bros.) 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

McLean v. Studebaker Bros., 168 A.D. 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Ingraham, P. J. (dissenting):

The plaintiff was not in the employ of the defendant, but in the employ of one who was working for the defendant under an independent contract. In the course of this work he fell off a ladder not furnished by the defendant. The defendant gave no directions as to how the work should be done, and, so far as appears, had no knowledge that the plaintiff was about to work at this particular fanlight or window at the time of the accident. Unless it was the duty of the defendant to keep this fanlight bolted at all times I do not see how it would be negligence to have it unbolted at the time the plaintiff selected for cleaning it. I think there is not the slightest proof that the defendant was negligent or that the accident resulted from any lack of care of the defendant or its employees. I think, therefore, the judgment should be reversed, and the complaint dismissed. Hotchkiss, J., concurred.

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

Ingraham, P. J. (dissenting):

The plaintiff was not in the employ of the defendant, but in the employ of one who was working for the defendant under an independent contract. In the course of this work he fell off a ladder not furnished by the defendant. The defendant gave no directions as to how the work should be done, and, so far as appears, had no knowledge that the plaintiff was about to work at this particular fanlight or window at the time of the accident. Unless it was the duty of the defendant to keep this fanlight bolted at all times I do not see how it would be negligence to have it unbolted at the time the plaintiff selected for cleaning it. I think there is not the slightest proof that the defendant was negligent or that the accident resulted from any lack of care of the defendant or its employees. I think, therefore, the judgment should be reversed, and the complaint dismissed. Hotchkiss, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D. 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclean-v-studebaker-bros-nyappdiv-1915.