Skidmore v. Rosenblatt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skidmore v. Rosenblatt

258 A.D. 919, 16 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7580

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 258 A.D. 919 (Skidmore v. Rosenblatt) 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

Skidmore v. Rosenblatt, 258 A.D. 919, 16 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in moving shrubs on the premises of defendants, his employers, judgment in favor of defendants, entered on a dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case, reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. There was prima facie proof of negligence on the part of defendants in failing to provide a sufficient number of workmen to perform the work safely. (Pantzar v. Tilly Foster Iron Mining Co., 99 N. Y. 368; O’Connall v. Thompson-Starrett Co., 72 App. Div. 47; Farley v. White Engineering Co., 131 id. 228; Dair v. New York & P. R. Steamship Co., 139 id. 751; revd. on other grounds, 204 N. Y. 341.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Johnston, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Close, JJ., dissent with the following memorandum; We agree with the majority that there was prima fade proof of negligence. We, nevertheless, dissent and vote to affirm the judgment on the ground that the plaintiff showed by his own testimony that he assumed an obvious risk and that such testimony required a dismissal of the complaint as matter of law where the action was not brought under the Employers’ Liability Law. (Collelli v. Turner, 154 App. Div. 218; affd., 215 N. Y. 675.)

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 sustained by plaintiff in moving shrubs on the premises of defendants, his employers, judgment in favor of defendants, entered on a dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case, reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. There was prima facie proof of negligence on the part of defendants in failing to provide a sufficient number of workmen to perform the work safely. (Pantzar v. Tilly Foster Iron Mining Co., 99 N. Y. 368; O’Connall v. Thompson-Starrett Co., 72 App. Div. 47; Farley v. White Engineering Co., 131 id. 228; Dair v. New York & P. R. Steamship Co., 139 id. 751; revd. on other grounds, 204 N. Y. 341.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Johnston, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Close, JJ., dissent with the following memorandum; We agree with the majority that there was prima fade proof of negligence. We, nevertheless, dissent and vote to affirm the judgment on the ground that the plaintiff showed by his own testimony that he assumed an obvious risk and that such testimony required a dismissal of the complaint as matter of law where the action was not brought under the Employers’ Liability Law. (Collelli v. Turner, 154 App. Div. 218; affd., 215 N. Y. 675.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 919, 16 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skidmore-v-rosenblatt-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack