Rourange v. Colombian Steamship Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rourange v. Colombian Steamship Co.

254 A.D. 906, 5 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8257

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

DecidedJune 24, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 906 (Rourange v. Colombian Steamship 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

Rourange v. Colombian Steamship Co., 254 A.D. 906, 5 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action brought under the Jones Act to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate, who, while employed on defendant’s steamship, was fatally shot by a fellow-employee with a pistol which a passenger had directed him to clean, judgment in favor of defendant, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Assuming that Pardo was acting within the scope of his employment in undertaking to clean the gun, which would have presented a question of fact for the jury, it nevertheless appeared from the plaintiff’s evidence that Pardo had abandoned his duties in displaying the pistol to the deceased, and consequently his employer is not liable. (Ford v. Grand Union Co., 268 N. Y. 243; Culhane v. Economical Garage Co., 188 App. Div. 1.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Davis, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ.

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

In an action brought under the Jones Act to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate, who, while employed on defendant’s steamship, was fatally shot by a fellow-employee with a pistol which a passenger had directed him to clean, judgment in favor of defendant, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Assuming that Pardo was acting within the scope of his employment in undertaking to clean the gun, which would have presented a question of fact for the jury, it nevertheless appeared from the plaintiff’s evidence that Pardo had abandoned his duties in displaying the pistol to the deceased, and consequently his employer is not liable. (Ford v. Grand Union Co., 268 N. Y. 243; Culhane v. Economical Garage Co., 188 App. Div. 1.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Davis, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 906, 5 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rourange-v-colombian-steamship-co-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack