Whalen v. Standard Gas-Light Co.

New York Court of Common Pleas

Whalen v. Standard Gas-Light Co.

10 N.Y.S. 105, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 48, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1984

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedJune 2, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 N.Y.S. 105 (Whalen v. Standard Gas-Light Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whalen v. Standard Gas-Light Co., 10 N.Y.S. 105, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 48, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1984 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Daly, J.

The plaintiff, a laborer in the defendant’s employment, was injured while loading gas-mains upon a truck, and it is claimed that defendant furnished unsafe appliances for the work; the truck, and the means for load-it, being, as alleged, unsuitable and improper. On the trial, a fellow-workman of the plaintiff was permitted to testify to a declaration made by defendant’s foreman after the accident that the truck was not a fit truck to load pipe on. The exception to the admission of this evidence requires the reversal of the judgment. Admissions and declarations of an agent after the fact, not part of the res gestee, are not admissible. An attempt was made to cure the error by a subsequent direction to the jury to disregard the evidence. This is unavailing. Erben v. Lorillard, 19 N. Y. 299; Church v. Howard, 79 N. Y. 415. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.

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

Daly, J.

The plaintiff, a laborer in the defendant’s employment, was injured while loading gas-mains upon a truck, and it is claimed that defendant furnished unsafe appliances for the work; the truck, and the means for load-it, being, as alleged, unsuitable and improper. On the trial, a fellow-workman of the plaintiff was permitted to testify to a declaration made by defendant’s foreman after the accident that the truck was not a fit truck to load pipe on. The exception to the admission of this evidence requires the reversal of the judgment. Admissions and declarations of an agent after the fact, not part of the res gestee, are not admissible. An attempt was made to cure the error by a subsequent direction to the jury to disregard the evidence. This is unavailing. Erben v. Lorillard, 19 N. Y. 299; Church v. Howard, 79 N. Y. 415. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.Y.S. 105, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 48, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whalen-v-standard-gas-light-co-nyctcompl-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack