Connolly v. Hall & Grant Construction Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Patrick Connolly, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 22d- day of March, 1906, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court .after á trial, at the New York Trial Term, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 19th day of March, 1906, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
1Dissent
McLaughlin, J. (dissenting):
The defendant was obligated to furnish the plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in which to do his work and it could not exempt *394itself from liability for a failure in that respect' by delegating that duty to another. (Benzing v. Steinway & Sons, 101 N. Y. 547 ; Probst v. Delamater, 100 id. 266; Pantzar v. Tilly Foster Iron Mining Co., 99 id. 368.) The place here furnished was the bridge. . The defendant knew how it was constructed and the Weight it would sustain,, of which the plaintiff was ignorant It, therefore, knew, or in-law was bound to know, that as soon…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Benzing v. . Steinway and SonsNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Stringham v. . StewartNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Pluckham v. American Bridge Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Pluckham v. . American Bridge CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1906