Teetsel v. Simmons

New York Supreme Court

Teetsel v. Simmons

34 N.Y.S. 972, 95 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 621, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 35, 88 Hun 621

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 6, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 N.Y.S. 972 (Teetsel v. Simmons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Teetsel v. Simmons, 34 N.Y.S. 972, 95 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 621, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 35, 88 Hun 621 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinions

HERRICK, J.

It seems to me that the evidence in this case establishes that the switch board upon which the plaintiff was standing at the time of the accident was placed there to be used for the purposes of a switch board only, and not as a part of a passage[973]*973way for the workmen of one room or part of the ice house to the other; that its occasional use as a passageway by some of the workmen was not in pursuance of any custom, or by any authority of the defendants; that the board was reasonably sufficient for the purpose for which it was intended it should be used,—that is, as a switch board; that the accident happened by reason of the careless act of a fellow servant, while not in the performance of any duty necessary to be performed in the course of his employment. It follows from these conclusions that the judgment should be reversed.

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

MAYHAM, P. J., concurs.

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

HERRICK, J.

It seems to me that the evidence in this case establishes that the switch board upon which the plaintiff was standing at the time of the accident was placed there to be used for the purposes of a switch board only, and not as a part of a passage[973]*973way for the workmen of one room or part of the ice house to the other; that its occasional use as a passageway by some of the workmen was not in pursuance of any custom, or by any authority of the defendants; that the board was reasonably sufficient for the purpose for which it was intended it should be used,—that is, as a switch board; that the accident happened by reason of the careless act of a fellow servant, while not in the performance of any duty necessary to be performed in the course of his employment. It follows from these conclusions that the judgment should be reversed.

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

MAYHAM, P. J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.Y.S. 972, 95 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 621, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 35, 88 Hun 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teetsel-v-simmons-nysupct-1895.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack