Skrodanes v. Knickerbocker Ice Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Dutchess on the 25th day of May, 1916, in favor of the plaintiffs, and from an order entered in said office on the same day, denying its motion for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Dutchess on the 25th day of May, 1916, in favor of the plaintiffs, and from an order entered in said office on the same day, denying its motion for a new trial. We do not think that the request to charge, discussed in the dissenting opinion, should be regarded as limited to the breaking of the rope from a defect therein, but that the request was general and embraced also a breaking from the negligent use of the rope, and that, therefore, the request was properly refused. We think,…
1Opinion of the Court
Jenks, P. J. (dissenting):
I dissent. The plaintiffs litigated the defective condition of the rope and the negligent method of doing the work at the instance of defendant’s foreman. The learned court charged the jury that if the greater weight of the evidence established that the rope was defective or that the order or act of the superintendent was-careless or negligent and that one or both caused the accident, then there would be a verdict for the plaintiffs, in the absence of contributory negligence. At the close of the charge the defendant requested an instruction, “if the rope broke…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Clancy v. . ByrneNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Scott v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Laplante v. Warren Cotton MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- Pettersen v. Rahtjen's American Composition Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908