Wood v. Burke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wood v. Burke

121 A.D. 542, 106 N.Y.S. 204, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1830

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D. 542 (Wood v. Burke) 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

Wood v. Burke, 121 A.D. 542, 106 N.Y.S. 204, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The action i& by. servant. against master for negligence. The plaintiff, while at work as a bricklayer in a building in the course ,of construction, was struck by a falling .thing from the upper part, of" the building and injured. The alleged negligence is that the master failed to furnish a safe and proper place for the servant to work in ; that the servant was put. at work-in a place not prope'rly protected against the fall of such things.. The Municipal .Court was requested to charge the jury that the master is never the insurer of the. safety of a- workman on a building, and the court declined so. .to charge under exception.- While the request'was general, we cannot say that it"was not germane,- especially in. view, of the fact that the court had already charged the jury that it was the duty of the master to give the employees safe place' to work in. We cannot say that the effect of. such a charge was not to instruct the jury that the master was held to a higher rule of liability than, that imposed upon, him by law. For these reasons we think the judgment, must be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Present — Jerks,-Hooker, Gaynor,- Rich and'MiLLER, JJ.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam :

The action i& by. servant. against master for negligence. The plaintiff, while at work as a bricklayer in a building in the course ,of construction, was struck by a falling .thing from the upper part, of" the building and injured. The alleged negligence is that the master failed to furnish a safe and proper place for the servant to work in ; that the servant was put. at work-in a place not prope'rly protected against the fall of such things.. The Municipal .Court was requested to charge the jury that the master is never the insurer of the. safety of a- workman on a building, and the court declined so. .to charge under exception.- While the request'was general, we cannot say that it"was not germane,- especially in. view, of the fact that the court had already charged the jury that it was the duty of the master to give the employees safe place' to work in. We cannot say that the effect of. such a charge was not to instruct the jury that the master was held to a higher rule of liability than, that imposed upon, him by law. For these reasons we think the judgment, must be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Present — Jerks,-Hooker, Gaynor,- Rich and'MiLLER, JJ.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D. 542, 106 N.Y.S. 204, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-burke-nyappdiv-1907.