Smith v. Majestic Iron Works, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Majestic Iron Works, Inc.

1 A.D.2d 702, 147 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3659

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 702 (Smith v. Majestic Iron Works, Inc.) 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

Smith v. Majestic Iron Works, Inc., 1 A.D.2d 702, 147 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff fell down a stairway in a building owned by his employer, through the alleged negligence of defendants, the general contractor and a subcontractor, engaged in construction work therein. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of defendants. Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the references to workmen’s compensation were unnecessary and improper but were waived by plaintiff by cross-examination of an officer of his employer with respect thereto and by calling a witness from the compensation carrier. (Johnson v. Gianino, 279 App. Div. 760.) It was error to refuse to charge, at plaintiff’s request, that if two causes contribute to an accident and if defendant was responsible for only one of these causes, the defendant is nevertheless liable for the full consequences of the accident. However, on this record, the error was not prejudicial. Present ■—• Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.

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

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff fell down a stairway in a building owned by his employer, through the alleged negligence of defendants, the general contractor and a subcontractor, engaged in construction work therein. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of defendants. Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the references to workmen’s compensation were unnecessary and improper but were waived by plaintiff by cross-examination of an officer of his employer with respect thereto and by calling a witness from the compensation carrier. (Johnson v. Gianino, 279 App. Div. 760.) It was error to refuse to charge, at plaintiff’s request, that if two causes contribute to an accident and if defendant was responsible for only one of these causes, the defendant is nevertheless liable for the full consequences of the accident. However, on this record, the error was not prejudicial. Present ■—• Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 702, 147 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-majestic-iron-works-inc-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack