Paul v. Flag Fish Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paul v. Flag Fish Co.

7 A.D.2d 656, 180 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4195

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 656 (Paul v. Flag Fish Co.) 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

Paul v. Flag Fish Co., 7 A.D.2d 656, 180 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from a judgment dismissing the complaint as to respondent at the close of the entire ease. Appellant was injured when he rescued an employee of respondent from falling through an opening on the second floor of premises maintained and controlled by respondent. Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. If respondent- was negligent with respect to its employee, it may be held negligent with respect to appellant, who attempted to, and did, rescue the employee. (Wagner v. International Ry. Co., 232 N. Y. 176.) In our opinion, a jury might • find that respondent was negligent in providing its employee with a rope with which he could not properly perform his assigned task of pulling the rope through a pully. Beldock, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Wenzel, Acting P. J., and Murphy, J., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: Apart from the reasons stated by the court for its dismissal of the complaint as to respondent, everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that it was physically impossible for the accident to have happened as testified to by appellant. Anyone who has ever pulled on a rope knows that when tension is suddenly released one falls backward and does not pitch forward. The same applies to the alleged grasp which appellant had on the employee’s collar.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from a judgment dismissing the complaint as to respondent at the close of the entire ease. Appellant was injured when he rescued an employee of respondent from falling through an opening on the second floor of premises maintained and controlled by respondent. Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. If respondent- was negligent with respect to its employee, it may be held negligent with respect to appellant, who attempted to, and did, rescue the employee. (Wagner v. International Ry. Co., 232 N. Y. 176.) In our opinion, a jury might • find that respondent was negligent in providing its employee with a rope with which he could not properly perform his assigned task of pulling the rope through a pully. Beldock, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Wenzel, Acting P. J., and Murphy, J., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: Apart from the reasons stated by the court for its dismissal of the complaint as to respondent, everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that it was physically impossible for the accident to have happened as testified to by appellant. Anyone who has ever pulled on a rope knows that when tension is suddenly released one falls backward and does not pitch forward. The same applies to the alleged grasp which appellant had on the employee’s collar.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 656, 180 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-v-flag-fish-co-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack