Petersen v. Rand Construction Co.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBenjamin Brenner, J.
Implicit in the jury’s verdict for the plaintiff is a finding that the defendant Safway, as lessor of the defective scaffolding bracket, had failed to exercise due care in supplying same to the job site, which failure proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries. That determination is warranted upon the evidence even though plaintiff’s employer may have been concurrently negligent in making use of the defective bracket (La Rocca v. Farrington, 276 App. Div. 126, affd. 301 N. Y. 247).
The defendant urges that the use by plaintiff’s employer of so openly and patently defective a piece of equipment…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ferraro v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1936
- Mitchell v. LonerganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- La Rocca v. FarringtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1950
- Payne v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Trusty Et Ux. v. PattersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sarnoff v. SchadNew York Supreme Court · 1966
- Petersen v. Rand Contruction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965