Carney v. . Minnesota Dock Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of-the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered ¡November 19, 1906, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as .material, are stated in the opinion. The court erred in refusing to charge as requested by the defendant’s counsel concerning the effect of the alleged widening of the hook.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of-the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered ¡November 19, 1906, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as .material, are stated in the opinion. The court erred in refusing to charge as requested by the defendant’s counsel concerning the effect of the alleged widening of the hook. (Leeds v. N. Y. T. Co., 178 N. Y. 121; Galasso v. Nat. S. S. Co., 27 App. Div. 169.) The court was correct in submitting…
1Opinion of the CourtWerner, J.
The action is for damages for injuries which the plaintiff sustained while in the employ of the defendant. The complaint was framed under the Employers’ Liability Act; and was broad enough to cover various kinds and degrees of dereliction of duty by the defendant, but the evidence narrowed the actual issue to the single question whether a certain hook which was used as a part of a hoisting apparatus was so defective as to be the sole cause of the accident by which the plaintiff was injured. Had that question been pointedly and clearly submitted to the jury we should have no reason to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Restivo v. ConklinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
- Fahey v. New Amsterdam Gas Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909