Stokes v. New York Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stokes v. New York Life Insurance

112 A.D. 77, 98 N.Y.S. 135, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 605

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 112 A.D. 77 (Stokes v. New York Life Insurance) 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

Stokes v. New York Life Insurance, 112 A.D. 77, 98 N.Y.S. 135, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

The learned trial judge charged the jury that the provisions of the Labor Law (Laws of 1897, chap. 415, § 18 ; Id. § 19, as amd. by Laws of 1899, chap. 192), in effect making the master liable for the negligence. óf his contractor or servants in building -scaffolds in. certain specified cases, applied to this case. In this he was -in error according to á case afterwards decided (Schapp v. Bloomer, 181 N. Y. 125). This case is not distinguishable from that. The scaffold or platform on.horses on which the plaintiff was working, and which was set up by his fellow-workmen, was not within the meaning of the labor statute,’but a simplez affair used every day to wash walls and ceilings by janitors and their helpi It did not present the possibilities of danger contemplated by the statute. As there were plenty of planks furnished and on hand, the workmen had no need to use [79]*79the warped one (if, indeed, it was warped); bnt this does n'ot need to be considered now.

The judgment and order should be reversed.

Woodward, Jenks, Hooker and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

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

Gaynor, J.:

The learned trial judge charged the jury that the provisions of the Labor Law (Laws of 1897, chap. 415, § 18 ; Id. § 19, as amd. by Laws of 1899, chap. 192), in effect making the master liable for the negligence. óf his contractor or servants in building -scaffolds in. certain specified cases, applied to this case. In this he was -in error according to á case afterwards decided (Schapp v. Bloomer, 181 N. Y. 125). This case is not distinguishable from that. The scaffold or platform on.horses on which the plaintiff was working, and which was set up by his fellow-workmen, was not within the meaning of the labor statute,’but a simplez affair used every day to wash walls and ceilings by janitors and their helpi It did not present the possibilities of danger contemplated by the statute. As there were plenty of planks furnished and on hand, the workmen had no need to use [79]*79the warped one (if, indeed, it was warped); bnt this does n'ot need to be considered now.

The judgment and order should be reversed.

Woodward, Jenks, Hooker and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D. 77, 98 N.Y.S. 135, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stokes-v-new-york-life-insurance-nyappdiv-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack