Pappageorge v. Rosa

Second Circuit

Pappageorge v. Rosa

212 F.2d 587

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 10, 1954

DocketNo. 250, Docket 22964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 F.2d 587 (Pappageorge v. Rosa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pappageorge v. Rosa, 212 F.2d 587 (2d Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this landowner’s action for damages to his buildings from an adjoining sewer excavation, plaintiff’s basic contention of an absolute duty to avoid a cave-in on the part of the defendant contractor must fail. Such duty appertains only to the land in its natural state; where, as here, it is encumbered with buildings, the basis of liability must be negligence, as the trial judge correctly charged. Canfield Rubber Co. v. Leary & Co., 99 Conn. 40, 121 A. 283; Carrig v. Andrews, 127, Conn. 403, 17 A.2d 520, 132 A.L.R. 993; 4 Restatement, Torts § 817 (1939). The other assigned errors are without merit. The judge’s comments on the evidence were restrained and appropriate, particularly when he emphasized the ultimate responsibility of the jury as to the facts. His charge was adequate and fair; moreover, no appropriate objection, upon which to found claim of error, was tak- . en. And his inadvertent mistake in one instance as to a date could have misled no one. The case was well tried.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this landowner’s action for damages to his buildings from an adjoining sewer excavation, plaintiff’s basic contention of an absolute duty to avoid a cave-in on the part of the defendant contractor must fail. Such duty appertains only to the land in its natural state; where, as here, it is encumbered with buildings, the basis of liability must be negligence, as the trial judge correctly charged. Canfield Rubber Co. v. Leary & Co., 99 Conn. 40, 121 A. 283; Carrig v. Andrews, 127, Conn. 403, 17 A.2d 520, 132 A.L.R. 993; 4 Restatement, Torts § 817 (1939). The other assigned errors are without merit. The judge’s comments on the evidence were restrained and appropriate, particularly when he emphasized the ultimate responsibility of the jury as to the facts. His charge was adequate and fair; moreover, no appropriate objection, upon which to found claim of error, was tak- . en. And his inadvertent mistake in one instance as to a date could have misled no one. The case was well tried.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 F.2d 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pappageorge-v-rosa-ca2-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack