Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Bicklemeyer v. Lackawanna Steel Co.

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

Decided November 17, 1915Published

Appeal by the defendant, Lackawanna Steel Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Erie on the 9th day of July, 1915, upon the verdict of a jury for $1,600, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the same day denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

1Concurrence

Kruse, P. J. (concurring in result):

I concur in the result. While the evidence is not very satisfactory, I think it is sufficient to submit the question to the jury- as to whether the method of carrying forward the work was reasonably safe. (Pepe v. Utica Pipe Foundry Co., 132 App. Div. 458; Banchetti v. Gorsline & Swan Const. Co., 152 id. 275.)

The plaintiff had nothing to do with moving about these covers. His work was relining them after they had been placed for that purpose. He was set at work doing that by the foreman, and then, so far as appears, the foreman took no precaution to see…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Pepe v. Utica Pipe Foundry Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API