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

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D. 224 (Sweeney v. Thompson Starrett Co.) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 224, 285 N.Y.S. 246, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweeney-v-thompson-starrett-co-nyappdiv-1936.