Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rohlfs v. Weil

New York Court of Appeals

Decided July 8, 1936Published

1DissentLehman, J.

The cause of the plaintiff’s injury was the negligent use of a scaffold in painting a signboard upon a building controlled by the defendant Gotham Silk Hosiery Co., Inc. That company had leased the signboard to Strauss & Co., Inc. Strauss & Co. in turn contracted with the defendant Weil for the painting of the sign. His employee was negligent in the fastening of the scaffold. For such negligence neither of the other defendants is liable. They may be held only for some breach of duty of their own.

To paint the sign, a scaffold, suspended over the street, was necessary. The temporary suspension…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hexamer v. . WebbNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
  2. Boylhart v. DiMarco & Reimann, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
  3. Davis v. John L. Whiting & Son Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
  4. Weilbacher v. J. W. Putts Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1914
  5. Kirby v. NewmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1925

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API