Morey v. Lehigh Valley Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morey v. Lehigh Valley Railroad

175 A.D. 756, 162 N.Y.S. 434, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8994

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 175 A.D. 756 (Morey v. Lehigh Valley Railroad) 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

Morey v. Lehigh Valley Railroad, 175 A.D. 756, 162 N.Y.S. 434, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8994 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinions

Kellogg, P. J.:

Evidently the horizontal plank was furnished by the company as a platform. The work upon the ceiling could not be [757]*757done without the use of a platform. Those who had worked upon the ceiling before the plaintiff came evidently considered this plank as the platform furnished them. There is no suggestion that any other platform was furnished. The fact that the plaintiff and his fellow-workmen, when they were required to finish the work upon the ceiling, thought that the platform was not entirely secure and put a perpendicular plank under it to prevent it from sagging does not relieve the defendant from the duty of furnishing a suitable platform. Of course, if the platform was sufficient aside from the upright plank, and they rendered it insecure by attempting to fix it, the plaintiff should not recover. It is difficult to see how the upright plank could act as a pivot and make the platform more insecure than it was before. It was a fair question of fact for the jury to determine whether the plank was furnished as a platform and whether the plaintiff and his companion, by tampering with it, rendered it insecure and unsafe.

The order and judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

Kellogg, P. J.:

Evidently the horizontal plank was furnished by the company as a platform. The work upon the ceiling could not be [757]*757done without the use of a platform. Those who had worked upon the ceiling before the plaintiff came evidently considered this plank as the platform furnished them. There is no suggestion that any other platform was furnished. The fact that the plaintiff and his fellow-workmen, when they were required to finish the work upon the ceiling, thought that the platform was not entirely secure and put a perpendicular plank under it to prevent it from sagging does not relieve the defendant from the duty of furnishing a suitable platform. Of course, if the platform was sufficient aside from the upright plank, and they rendered it insecure by attempting to fix it, the plaintiff should not recover. It is difficult to see how the upright plank could act as a pivot and make the platform more insecure than it was before. It was a fair question of fact for the jury to determine whether the plank was furnished as a platform and whether the plaintiff and his companion, by tampering with it, rendered it insecure and unsafe.

The order and judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 A.D. 756, 162 N.Y.S. 434, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morey-v-lehigh-valley-railroad-nyappdiv-1916.