Sloan v. The Flowergate

E.D. New York

Sloan v. The Flowergate

31 F. 762, 1887 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251

District Court, E.D. New York·Decided April 7, 1887·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Benedict, J.

The evidence is not sufficient to justify finding as a fact that the condition of the oy e-bolt, when it was put to use at the time the plaintiff was injured through its giving way, was such as to inform anyone of the fact that the bolt was already partly broken off. The eye ivas connter-sunk in the dock, and the old break was below the upper surface of the deck. This location rendered the defect in truth latent. The use of an eye-bolt, apparently sufficient, but in reality insufficient solely because of a latent delect, entails no liability for damages caused by such defect.

The libel must be dismissed, with costs.

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

Benedict, J.

The evidence is not sufficient to justify finding as a fact that the condition of the oy e-bolt, when it was put to use at the time the plaintiff was injured through its giving way, was such as to inform anyone of the fact that the bolt was already partly broken off. The eye ivas connter-sunk in the dock, and the old break was below the upper surface of the deck. This location rendered the defect in truth latent. The use of an eye-bolt, apparently sufficient, but in reality insufficient solely because of a latent delect, entails no liability for damages caused by such defect.

The libel must be dismissed, with costs.

Sloan v. The Flowergate, 31 F. 762, 1887 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251 (E.D.N.Y. 1887).

Pincite

31 F. 762 (Sloan v. The Flowergate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related