Zuco v. Funt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zuco v. Funt

266 A.D. 802, 42 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4542

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

DecidedMay 24, 1943

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D. 802 (Zuco v. Funt) 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

Zuco v. Funt, 266 A.D. 802, 42 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur; Close, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a now trial, with costs to appellants to abide the event, with the following memorandum: As plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed at the close of the case, they are entitled to the most favorable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. Applying that test, the jury could have found that the steel workers were permitted to erect steel columns to support the sixth floor before the fifth floor had been planked over, as required by subdivision 4 of section 241 of the Labor Law. This statutory duty is absolute and nondelegable. Every owner and general contractor who fails to perform it is guilty of negligence as a matter of law where, as here, a causal connection is established between the failure to perform the duty and the accident causing the injury. In addition, the owner of a building under construction, acting as general contractor, is under a duty to an employee of a subcontractor to use reasonable care to furnish such employee with a reasonably safe place to work. (Caspersen v. La Sala Bros., 253 N. Y. 491; Hooey v. Airport Construction Co., 253 N. Y. 486.)

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

Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur; Close, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a now trial, with costs to appellants to abide the event, with the following memorandum: As plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed at the close of the case, they are entitled to the most favorable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. Applying that test, the jury could have found that the steel workers were permitted to erect steel columns to support the sixth floor before the fifth floor had been planked over, as required by subdivision 4 of section 241 of the Labor Law. This statutory duty is absolute and nondelegable. Every owner and general contractor who fails to perform it is guilty of negligence as a matter of law where, as here, a causal connection is established between the failure to perform the duty and the accident causing the injury. In addition, the owner of a building under construction, acting as general contractor, is under a duty to an employee of a subcontractor to use reasonable care to furnish such employee with a reasonably safe place to work. (Caspersen v. La Sala Bros., 253 N. Y. 491; Hooey v. Airport Construction Co., 253 N. Y. 486.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D. 802, 42 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zuco-v-funt-nyappdiv-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack