Rockstrow v. Astoria Marble Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rockstrow v. Astoria Marble Co.

121 A.D. 144, 105 N.Y.S. 501, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1727

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D. 144 (Rockstrow v. Astoria Marble 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

Rockstrow v. Astoria Marble Co., 121 A.D. 144, 105 N.Y.S. 501, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1727 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

The plaintiff was employed as a ■ machinist in. the defendant’s shop.. He also closed .up the shop every night, that being his duty. He' testified that as he was closing, a window in the performance of this duty, part of a pane of glass fell out of it and cut his arm, •. Another witness testified- that he had noticed for a few weeks that the pane was cracked across; On this the justice gave, judg[145]*145ment for the plaintiff for. damages. There seems to be no' end to such actions. As it was the plaintiff’s duty to close the windows daily, it was for him to report to his employer, or to some one in authority,, if they were in a condition dangerous to him. Tiiis he never did; and there is ho evidence that any one did,- or that the employer or. any one in authority knew of the broken pane; if-that makes a difference.

The judgment should be reversed;

Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

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

Gaynor, J.:

The plaintiff was employed as a ■ machinist in. the defendant’s shop.. He also closed .up the shop every night, that being his duty. He' testified that as he was closing, a window in the performance of this duty, part of a pane of glass fell out of it and cut his arm, •. Another witness testified- that he had noticed for a few weeks that the pane was cracked across; On this the justice gave, judg[145]*145ment for the plaintiff for. damages. There seems to be no' end to such actions. As it was the plaintiff’s duty to close the windows daily, it was for him to report to his employer, or to some one in authority,, if they were in a condition dangerous to him. Tiiis he never did; and there is ho evidence that any one did,- or that the employer or. any one in authority knew of the broken pane; if-that makes a difference.

The judgment should be reversed;

Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D. 144, 105 N.Y.S. 501, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rockstrow-v-astoria-marble-co-nyappdiv-1907.