Legal Opinion

Pierce v. . Atlantic, Gulf Pacific Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided November 16, 1915PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered November 28, 1913, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.

Read the full summary

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered November 28, 1913, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The trial court erred in holding that section 18 of the Labor Law was not applicable for the reason that the plaintiff was not employed in erecting, repairing or altering a structure, and the defendant did not furnish the derrick for the performance of such labor.…

1Opinion of the CourtCollin, J.

The action is by a servant against his master to recover damages for personal injuries. The trial court dismissed the complaint. We are to determine whether or not the evidence presented an issue of fact; in reviewing it we must give the plaintiff the advantage of all the facts properly presented and of every favorable inference that can reasonably be drawn. (Kraus v. Birnbaum, 200 N. Y. 130; Pinder v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 173 N. Y. 519.)

The cardinal facts are: The work which the defendant was prosecuting and in which the plaintiff was aiding was, transferring coal, situate about fifty…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Sweet v. . PerkinsNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
  2. Stringham v. . StewartNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
  3. Kraus v. . BirnbaumNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
  4. Coppins v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
  5. Pinder v. . Brooklyn Heights R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1903

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Dunham v. Village of CanisteoNew York Court of Appeals · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API