Legal Opinion
Laning v. . N.Y.C.R.R. Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided May 28, 1872PublishedCited by 85 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Viewing the case as the jury would have been warranted in doing, it comes in the main to this.
The plaintiff with others, he and they being fellow-servants of the defendant, were engaged in the course of their ordinary service, in the performance of a work for the defendant, to do which it was necessary that there should be put up a scaffold for them to stand upon.
One Westman, the foreman of these men, directed one Churchill and another to put up the scaffold. There is some dispute in the testimony as to who the other was; but the jury might properly have found that one Foreman was the person…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hayden v. Smithville Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1861
- Wright v. . New York Central Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Althorf v. . WolfeNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Mad River & Lake Erie Railroad v. BarberOhio Supreme Court · 1856
- Noyes v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by85 opinions
- Hough v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Fort Worth Elevators Co. v. RussellTexas Supreme Court · 1934
- Flike v. . Boston and Albany R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Marsh v. . ChickeringNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Gibson v. . Erie Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1875
80 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.