Legal Opinion

Baum v. Rowland

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

Decided April 21, 1953PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff, having undertaken to repair the plaster on the ceiling, assumed the risk that it might fall, so that there was no duty owed to him, as would have been the case toward other types of invitees upon the premises. Responsibility does not rest upon an owner of real property to recompense an independent contractor hurt by a dangerous condition which he had undertaken to repair (Kowalsky v. Conreco Co., 264 N. Y. 125).

Plaintiff seeks to sustain the judgment on the ground that he was engaged as a painter and not as a plasterer, and that he had undertaken to repair the crack in the ceiling…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Kowalsky v. Conreco CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
  2. Dittiger v. Isal Realty Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1943

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Backiel v. Citibank, N.A.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
  2. McKinney v. SetteducattiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  3. Vorous v. CochranSuperior Court of Delaware · 1969
  4. Steichen v. Talcott Properties, LLCMontana Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Steichen v. Talcott Properties, LLCMontana Supreme Court · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API