Moore v. Charles T. Wills, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1929 |
| Citation | 250 N.Y. 426,165 N.E. 835 |
| Parties | MOORE v. CHARLES T. WILLS, Inc., et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Walter Moore against Charles T. Wills, Inc., and J. Kresse Company, Inc. Judgment for plaintiff, entered upon a verdict of a jury rendered at Trial Term, was affirmed (223 App. Div. 888, 229 N. Y. S. 889), and defendants appeal.
Affirmed as to defendant last named, and otherwise reversed and rendered.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
E. C. Sherwood and H. H. Brown, both of New York City, for appellant Charles T. Wills, Inc.
Walter L. Glenney, of New York City, for appellant J. Kresse Co., inc.
Lewis Bassiano, Albert J. Rifkind, and Thomas T. Reilley, all of New York City, for respondent.
The defendant Charles T. Wills, Inc., was the general contractor engaged in remodeling a building. The defendant J. Kresse Co., Inc., was a subcontractor engaged in concrete floor work therein. A plank fell to the street and injured the plaintiff, and for such injuries a recovery has been had against both of said defendants. The verdict against the subcontractor, J. Kresse Co., Inc., is founded upon testimony tending to establish that its employees negligently caused or permitted the plank to fall to the street. The verdict of the jury and the affirmance of the judgment by the Appellate Division conclusively established said defendant's negligence, as the testimony presented raised a clear question of fact.
The verdict against the general contractor, Charles T. Wills, Inc., was based upon the ground that it had general supervision of the work and was negligent in not properly supervising the work as it progressed. We are of the opinion that there is no evidence which justified the submission of that question to the jury. It is not suggested that the plan was not safe and proper, or that the work was not being done in a lawful way. The work being done was not intrinsically dangerous or any more hazardous than the construction of any building on a busy street. No method of doing the work has been suggested which would make for greater safety. The negligence of the subcontractor occurred while it was acting independently of the general contractor, and the general contractor was not in any way connected with the negligent act.
As a general rule, a general contractor is not responsible for the negligent acts of his subcontractor. French v. Vix, 143 N. Y. 90, 37 N. E. 612;Hexamer v. Webb, 101 N....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toole v. United States, Civ. A. No. 75-2311.
...Oil Co., 44 Cal.2d 785, 285 P.2d 902 (1955); Kansas City, M. & O. R. v. Loosley, 76 Kan. 103, 90 P. 990 (1907); Moore v. Charles T. Wills, Inc., 250 N.Y. 426, 165 N.E. 835 (1929); Marion Shoe Co. v. Eppley, 181 Ind. 219, 104 N.E. 65 ...
-
Texas Co. v. Wheeless
... ... 705; Metcalfe ... v. Mitchell, 70 L.Ed. 384, 269 U.S. 514; Moore v ... Charles, 165 N.E. 835, 250 N.Y. 426; Social Security ... Act, ... ...
-
Waterway Terminals Co. v. P. S. Lord Mechanical Contractors
...distinguishable from that arising through negligent acts of a subcontractor occurring as a detail of the work. Moore v. Charles T. Wills, Inc., 250 N.Y. 426, 165 N.E. 835. 'The primary duty in a case like this is that of the general contractor or owner who maintains his own force of inspect......
-
Kaczmarek v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
...Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 55-56, 618 N.E.2d 82, 89 (1993); Moore v. Charles T. Wills, Inc., 250 N.Y. 426, 428-29, 165 N.E. 835 (1929) ("a general contractor or property owner is not responsible for the negligent acts of his subcontractor" and the......