Putvin v. Buffalo Elec. Co.,
| Citation | 3 A.D.2d 805,160 N.Y.S.2d 386 |
| Parties | Julia PUTVIN, as Administratrix etc. of Percy John Putvin, Plaintiff, v. BUFFALO ELECTRIC CO., Inc., and others, Defendants. BUFFALO ELECTRIC CO., Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, Respondent, v. WALLACE & TIERNAN, Incorporated, Third-Party Defendant, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 06 March 1957 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Hodgson, Russ, Andrews, Woods & Goodyear, Buffalo (Grover R. James, Jr., Buffalo, of counsel), for appellant.
Peter A. Schultz, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before McCURN, P. J., and VAUGHAN, KIMBALL, WILLIAMS, and BASTOW, JJ.
The motion of the third-party defendant to dismiss the third-party complaint of the defendant and third-party plaintiff was denied. The plaintiffs' complaints charge active and primary negligence against the defendant-third-party plaintiff by alleging that the accident was caused by the carelessness and negligence of the defendant and its employees in the conduct of its works upon the premises of the third-party defendant. The plaintiffs make no claim that the defendant-third-party plaintiff negligently failed to discover and guard against a dangerous condition created by the third-party defendant. They make no claim that the defendant-third-party plaintiff had knowledge or notice of any dangerous condition created by the third-party defendant and negligently failed to guard against it. Moreover, the defendant-third-party plaintiff disclaims knowledge or notice, actual or constructive, of any dangerous condition created on the premises by the third-party defendant. According to the pleadings, the plaintiffs may recover against the defendant-third-party plaintiff only by proving active negligence of the employees in the conduct of the work. In such case, there may be no indemnification by the third-party defendant. All concur.
Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements and motion to dismiss third-party complaint granted, with ten dollars costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Putvin v. Buffalo Elec. Co.
...complaint of Buffalo Electric. Special Term denied the motion but the Appellate Division unanimously reversed and granted it (3 A.D.2d 805, 160 N.Y.S.2d 386). Similarly, in the case at bar, Wallace & Tiernan, Inc., moved to dismiss the third-party complaints of Davis. As with the Buffalo El......
-
Lawless v. Board of Ed., Cent. School Dist. No. 1, Towns of Candor, Spencer, Caroline, Tioga and Tompkins Counties
...Lawless of course cannot sue his own employer so that if he has an action it can only be against Van Etten (Putvin v. Buffalo Electric Co., Inc., 3 A.D.2d 805, 160 N.Y.S.2d 386; Labate v. Fort Tryon Apartments, Inc., 2 A.D.2d 960, 157 N.Y.S.2d 204; Focacci v. City of New York, 14 Misc.2d 27......
-
Lee v. Tandy & Allen Const. Co.
...Kennedy v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 282 App.Div. 1001, 125 N.Y.S.2d 552, affirmed 307 N.Y. 875, 122 N.E.2d 753; Putvin v. Buffalo Electric Co., Inc., 3 A.D.2d 805, 160 N.Y.S.2d 386; Kile v. Riefler Bros. Contractors, 282 App.Div. 1000, 125 N.Y.S.2d The original complaint charges the defendant w......
-
Santomassino v. United States, Civ. A. No. 6316.
...two cases, to wit: Standard Brands, Inc., v. Arlen Trophy Co., Inc., 3 A.D.2d 998 and 1010, 163 N.Y.S.2d 437; Putvin v. Buffalo Electric Co., 3 A.D.2d 805, 160 N.Y.S.2d 386 are to the same effect. There is no doubt but what this is the present law of the State of New The situation in the in......