Moore v. Charles T. Wills, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Moore v. Charles T. Wills, Inc.

165 N.E. 835, 250 N.Y. 426, 1929 N.Y. LEXIS 897

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 19, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by33 cases

This text of 165 N.E. 835 (Moore v. Charles T. Wills, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore v. Charles T. Wills, Inc., 165 N.E. 835, 250 N.Y. 426, 1929 N.Y. LEXIS 897 (N.Y. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant Charles T. Wills, Inc., was the general contractor engaged in remodeling a building. The defendant J. Kresse Co., Inc., was a subcontractor .engaged in. concrete floor work therein. A plank fell to the street and injured the plaintiff, and for such injuries a recovery has been had against both of said defendants. The verdict against the subcontractor, J. Kresse Co., Inc., is founded upon testimony tending to establish that its employees negligently caused or permitted the plank to fall to the street. The verdict of the jury and the affirmance of the judgment by the Appellate Division conclusively established said defendant’s negligence, as the testimony presented raised a clear question of fact.

The verdict against the general contractor, Charles T. Wills, Inc., was based upon the ground that it had general supervision of the work and was negligent in not properly supervising the work as it progressed. We are of the opinion that there is no evidence which justified the submission of that question to the jury. It is not suggested that the plan was not safe and proper, or that the work was not being done in a lawful way. The work being done was not intrinsically dangerous or any more hazardous than the construction of any building on a busy street. No method of doing the work has been suggested which would make for greater safety. The negligence of the subcontractor occurred while it was acting independently of the general contractor, and the general contractor was not in any way connected with the negligent act.

As a general rule a general contractor is not responsible for the negligent acts of his subcontractor. (French v. Vix, 143 N. Y. 90; Hexamer v. Webb, 101 N. Y. 377.)

The plaintiff has failed to bring the general contractor *429 within any exception to the general rule. The fact that the general contractor retained some limited power of general supervision for the purpose of seeing that the work was being properly done by the subcontractor, according to the plans and specifications, did not make it liable for the independent negligent act of the subcontractor. (Upping ton v. City of New York, 165 N. Y. 222; Herman v. City of Buffalo, 214 N. Y. 316.)

The judgment against J. Kresse Co., Inc., should be affirmed, with costs, and the judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term against Charles T. Wills, Inc., should be reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant Charles T. Wills, Inc., was the general contractor engaged in remodeling a building. The defendant J. Kresse Co., Inc., was a subcontractor .engaged in. concrete floor work therein. A plank fell to the street and injured the plaintiff, and for such injuries a recovery has been had against both of said defendants. The verdict against the subcontractor, J. Kresse Co., Inc., is founded upon testimony tending to establish that its employees negligently caused or permitted the plank to fall to the street. The verdict of the jury and the affirmance of the judgment by the Appellate Division conclusively established said defendant’s negligence, as the testimony presented raised a clear question of fact.

The verdict against the general contractor, Charles T. Wills, Inc., was based upon the ground that it had general supervision of the work and was negligent in not properly supervising the work as it progressed. We are of the opinion that there is no evidence which justified the submission of that question to the jury. It is not suggested that the plan was not safe and proper, or that the work was not being done in a lawful way. The work being done was not intrinsically dangerous or any more hazardous than the construction of any building on a busy street. No method of doing the work has been suggested which would make for greater safety. The negligence of the subcontractor occurred while it was acting independently of the general contractor, and the general contractor was not in any way connected with the negligent act.

As a general rule a general contractor is not responsible for the negligent acts of his subcontractor. (French v. Vix, 143 N. Y. 90; Hexamer v. Webb, 101 N. Y. 377.)

The plaintiff has failed to bring the general contractor *429 within any exception to the general rule. The fact that the general contractor retained some limited power of general supervision for the purpose of seeing that the work was being properly done by the subcontractor, according to the plans and specifications, did not make it liable for the independent negligent act of the subcontractor. (Upping ton v. City of New York, 165 N. Y. 222; Herman v. City of Buffalo, 214 N. Y. 316.)

The judgment against J. Kresse Co., Inc., should be affirmed, with costs, and the judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term against Charles T. Wills, Inc., should be reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

Margaret E. Peter, Administratrix and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Ralph M. Peter, Deceased, in No. 15465 v. Public Constructors, Inc., and Public Contracting Corporation, and Third-Party and in No. 15466 v. Cunningham Construction Co., and Reid Construction Company, a Delaware Corp., Third-Party

368 F.2d 111 (Third Circuit, 1966)

Peter v. Public Constructors, Inc.

368 F.2d 111 (Third Circuit, 1966)

Waterway Terminals Co. v. P. S. Lord Mechanical Contractors

406 P.2d 556 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1965)

De Luca v. Fehlhaber Corp.

38 Misc. 2d 184 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1963)

Davis v. Caristo Construction Corp.

13 A.D.2d 382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)

Rosensweig v. State of New York

158 N.E.2d 229 (New York Court of Appeals, 1959)

Politi v. Irvmar Realty Corp.

7 A.D.2d 414 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)

Mazzochi v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

12 Misc. 2d 805 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)

Blackwood v. Chemical Corn Exchange Bank

4 A.D.2d 656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)

Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co.

93 N.E.2d 629 (New York Court of Appeals, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 N.E. 835, 250 N.Y. 426, 1929 N.Y. LEXIS 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-charles-t-wills-inc-ny-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack