Milne v. Chandler & Hatlee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Milne v. Chandler & Hatlee

23 A.D.2d 711, 257 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4691

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 711 (Milne v. Chandler & Hatlee) 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

Milne v. Chandler & Hatlee, 23 A.D.2d 711, 257 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J.

The third-party plaintiff-appellant appeals from an order which dismissed its complaint on the merits for failing to state a cause of action. The defendant was engaged in digging a trench. The decedent, an employee of the third-party defendant-respondent, entered the trench, which had not been shored up, and was killed' by a cave-in. A comprehensive statement of the facts is set forth in the decision of Special Term (45 Mise 2d 592). The only theory upon which the plaintiff could recover, under the allegations of the complaint, would be a showing of active negligence by the appellant in failing to perform the nondelegable duty of shoring up the walls of the trench as required by section 241 of the Labor Law and the implementing rules. (See 12 NYCRR 23.8; Bufo v. Orlando, 309 N. Y. 345, 350.) The determination of this factual issue at the trial will either establish or fail to establish active negligence on the part of the appellant but, in either event, there would be no basis for a judgment over against the third-party defendant-respondent. Order affirmed, with $10 costs. Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Herlihy, J.

The third-party plaintiff-appellant appeals from an order which dismissed its complaint on the merits for failing to state a cause of action. The defendant was engaged in digging a trench. The decedent, an employee of the third-party defendant-respondent, entered the trench, which had not been shored up, and was killed' by a cave-in. A comprehensive statement of the facts is set forth in the decision of Special Term (45 Mise 2d 592). The only theory upon which the plaintiff could recover, under the allegations of the complaint, would be a showing of active negligence by the appellant in failing to perform the nondelegable duty of shoring up the walls of the trench as required by section 241 of the Labor Law and the implementing rules. (See 12 NYCRR 23.8; Bufo v. Orlando, 309 N. Y. 345, 350.) The determination of this factual issue at the trial will either establish or fail to establish active negligence on the part of the appellant but, in either event, there would be no basis for a judgment over against the third-party defendant-respondent. Order affirmed, with $10 costs. Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 711, 257 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milne-v-chandler-hatlee-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack