Sweeney v. Thompson Starrett Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sweeney v. Thompson Starrett Co.

246 A.D. 224, 285 N.Y.S. 246, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9465

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 7, 1936·Published

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Although the appellant’s employees may have been aware of the decedent’s presence on the roof of the northerly hoist, they were not required to anticipate that without warning to [225]*225them he would place himself in the shaft of the southerly hoist which, according to the uncontradicted proof, was known to him to be in constant operation. The accident was not caused by any negligence on the part of the appellant’s employees but by the negligence of plaintiff’s intestate.

The judgment and order should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.; Dore, J., dissents and votes for affirmance.

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

Per Curiam.

Although the appellant’s employees may have been aware of the decedent’s presence on the roof of the northerly hoist, they were not required to anticipate that without warning to [225]*225them he would place himself in the shaft of the southerly hoist which, according to the uncontradicted proof, was known to him to be in constant operation. The accident was not caused by any negligence on the part of the appellant’s employees but by the negligence of plaintiff’s intestate.

The judgment and order should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.; Dore, J., dissents and votes for affirmance.

Sweeney v. Thompson Starrett Co., 246 A.D. 224, 285 N.Y.S. 246, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

246 A.D. 224 (Sweeney v. Thompson Starrett Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.