Ryan v. Feeney & Sheehan Bldg. Co.
Decision Date | 21 October 1924 |
Citation | 145 N.E. 321,239 N.Y. 43 |
Parties | RYAN v. FEENEY & SHEEHAN BLDG. CO. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Alice Ryan, as administratrix of Edward F. Ryan, deceased, against the Feeney & Sheehan Building Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (208 App. Div. 757, 202 N. Y. S. 950), affirming judgment on directed verdict for defendant, dismissing complaint, plaintiff appeals by permission.
Affirmed.
See, also, 202 App. Div. 45, 195 N. Y. S. 365; 203 App. Div. 838, 196 N. Y. S. 950; 208 App. Div. 825, 203 N. Y. S. 951.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third department.
Leary & Fullerton, of Saratoga Springs (Walter A. Fullerton and James A. Leary, both of Saratoga Springs, of counsel), for appellant.
Rosendale, Hessberg, Dugan & Haines, of Albany (P. C. Dugan, of Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
While the judgment in this case must be affirmed, we prefer to place our decision on other grounds than those stated by the Appellate Division.
The defendant constructed a building and a canopy according to plans and specifications furnished it by the United States government and its duly authorized architect. The defendant was a builder; it was not an architect. The contract provided:
The architect and the government officers employed upon the work were the ones who knew or should have known about the strength of iron supports and braces and the proper angles at which they should be placed. It is conceded that the defendant fully complied with the plans and specifications as it was required to do. The canopy fell down because the supporting irons or braces did not have sufficient spread or were fastened at too low an angle with the base. How was an ordinary contractor or builder to know this? The matter was for the engineers and architects to determine and design. The builder's experience might have suggested that another construction would have been better but it was not its judgment on these matters which was to be taken, and it was justified in relying upon the experience and skill of the architect and supervising engineer.
The evidence in the case given by the experts after the accident is that the fastening was not proper. Following is the evidence upon the subject:
‘[Witness examines it.]
‘
There was nothing to show that the plans and specifications were so obviously defective that a contractor of average skill and ordinary prudence would not have attempted the construction according to the plans. This is the rule to be applied. A builder or contractor is justified in relying upon the plans and specifications which he has contracted to follow, unless they are so apparently defective that an ordinary builder of ordinary prudence would be put upon notice that the work was dangerous and likely to cause injury. Such was not the case here.
In Hardie v. Boland, 205 N. Y. 336, 98 N. E. 661, the plaintiff's intestate while standing upon a scaffold was killed by being thrown from the scaffold by the collapse of a chimney. The contractor was erecting the chimney in accordance with plans made by architects who were employed by the owners. The court said:
‘The fall of the chimney in these circumstances may be prima facie evidence of the negligence...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Board of Educ. of City of Clifton v. W.R. Grace Corp.
...in the buildings they construct including the elimination of the requirement of privity. The court in citing Ryan v. Feeney & Sheehan Bldg. Co., 239 N.Y. 43, 145 N.E. 321 (Ct. of A. N.Y.1924), then The rule pronounced in the Ryan case, by the same court which earlier had decided MacPherson ......
-
Bynum v. FMC Corp.
...of Torts Sec. 404 comment a (1965); see also Davis v. Henderlong Lumber Co., 221 F.Supp. 129 (N.D.Ind.1963); Ryan v. Feeney & Sheehan Building Co., 239 N.Y. 43, 145 N.E. 321 (1924). The basis for this rule seems to have been the belief that the average contractor usually could not be expect......
-
Hema Kolainu–Hear Our Voices v. Providersoft, LLC
...Inc., 02–CV–814, 2007 WL 2743449, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Ryan v. Feeney & Sheehan Bldg. Co., 239 N.Y. 43, 145 N.E. 321 (1942); Munger v. Heider Mfg. Corp., 90 A.D.2d 645, 456 N.Y.S.2d 271 (3d Dep't 1982); Kern v. Roemer Mach. & Welding Co.......
-
Corwin v. NYC Bike Share, LLC
...of ordinary prudence would be put upon notice that the work was dangerous and likely to cause injury." Ryan v. Feeney & Sheehan Bldg. Co. , 239 N.Y. 43, 46, 145 N.E. 321 (1924). There are, however, genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the contractors installed the wheel stop in q......