Legal Opinion

Freel v. Chrome Steel Works

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

Decided July 15, 1906Published

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Hirscliberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks and Hooker, JJ., concurred; Gaynor, J., read for reversal.

1Opinion of the Court

Gaynor, J. (dissenting):

It seems plain to me that the facts of tins case are not understood. The manufacturing plant of the defendant borders along the Wallabout canal in Brooklyn. It has sheds along the canal for coal, iron, steel, etc. On the day of the accident barges alongside with coal for the defendant *917were being unloaded. By means of a large derrick of the defendant, the mast of which was permanently set in the ground on the defendant’s premises, and was forty feet high and one foot thick, the coal was hoisted from the boat in a large tub or bucket up into cars on overhead tracks on…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Connors v. King Line, LimitedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904

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

Powered by the Exa API