Shaffer v. Northeast Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shaffer v. Northeast Co.

259 A.D. 1053, 21 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7937

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

DecidedJune 24, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 1053 (Shaffer v. Northeast 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

Shaffer v. Northeast Co., 259 A.D. 1053, 21 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff was employed by the Works Progress Administration as a laborer, and Ms duties were to work beside a macMne which, together with its operator, had been hired by the Administration from the defendant. The plaintiff had a verdict in Ms favor and defendant appeals from the judgment entered thereon. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. It was error to charge as a matter of law that the operator of the macMne was the defendant’s employee, for whose negligence the defendant is liable. Under the facts in tMs case the issue should have been submitted to the jury as to whether or not the defendant had surrendered control of the machine and its operator to such an extent that the operator became, for the time being, the servant of the Works Progress Administration and subject to its instructions in the maimer of operation of the maeliine. Hagarty, Adel and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Carswell, J., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment.

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

Action to recover damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff was employed by the Works Progress Administration as a laborer, and Ms duties were to work beside a macMne which, together with its operator, had been hired by the Administration from the defendant. The plaintiff had a verdict in Ms favor and defendant appeals from the judgment entered thereon. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. It was error to charge as a matter of law that the operator of the macMne was the defendant’s employee, for whose negligence the defendant is liable. Under the facts in tMs case the issue should have been submitted to the jury as to whether or not the defendant had surrendered control of the machine and its operator to such an extent that the operator became, for the time being, the servant of the Works Progress Administration and subject to its instructions in the maimer of operation of the maeliine. Hagarty, Adel and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Carswell, J., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 1053, 21 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaffer-v-northeast-co-nyappdiv-1940.