Wohlfron v. Brooklyn Edison Co.
| Decision Date | 21 November 1933 |
| Citation | 263 N.Y. 547,189 N.E. 691 |
| Parties | Valentine WOHLFRON, Respondent, v. BROOKLYN EDISON COMPANY, Inc., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (238 App. Div. 463, 265 N. Y. S. 18), entered July 15, 1933, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury, in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff through the negligence of the defendant. The defendants engaged in the construction of an addition to its building, let out different parts of the work to contractors, by one of whom plaintiff was employed. At the time of the accident involved herein, plaintiff, while proceeding in the building to the place where his work was to be performed, was passing along a concrete slab, which had been completed by another contractor at least six months prior thereto. About two weeks before the accident a number of holes had been cut near and outside of the slab by still another contractor for purposes connected with the construction work. There was proof that the holes were undisclosed in the dim light furnished by the defendant, and that there was nothing to warn plaintiff of their presence. Plaintiff stepped into one of the holes, lost his balance, and fell, sustaining serious injuries. The trial court found as a fact that the work of the various contractors was under the supervision and direction of an engineer in charge of building construction who was an employee of the defendant. The Appellate Division based its affirmance on the common-law duty resting upon the defendant under such circumstances to furnish a safe place to work.
John D. Monroe, of New York City, for appellant.
Stephen Callaghan and Emanuel Sustick, both of New York City, for respondent.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cappabianca v. Skanska U.S. Bldg. Inc.
...[contractor's employee passing along concrete slab stepped into hole that another contractor had cut two weeks before], affd.263 N.Y. 547, 189 N.E. 691 [1933] ). The dissent believes that defendants' lack of supervisory control is irrelevant because the accident was entirely caused by a dan......
-
Karpowicz v. John Lowry, Inc.
...876; Coughtry v. Globe Woolen Co., 56 N.Y. 124; Wohlfrom v. Brooklyn Edison Co., Inc., 238 App.Div. 463, 265 N.Y.S. 18, affirmed 263 N.Y. 547, 189 N.E. 691. The subcontractor was engaged in the demolition of the building wherein plaintiff, its employee, was at work. The place of work where ......
-
Rusin v. Jackson Heights Shopping Center, Inc.
...27 A.D.2d 946, 947, 279 N.Y.S.2d 95, 97; Wohlfron v. Brooklyn Edison Co., Inc., 238 App.Div. 463, 465, 265 N.Y.S. 18, 20, affd. 263 N.Y. 547, 189 N.E. 691; Haefeli v. Woodrich Engineering Co., 255 N.Y. 442, 448, 175 N.E. 123, 125; Caspersen v. La Sala Bros., 253 N.Y. 491, 171 N.E. 754; Hess......
-
Garlichs v. Empire State Bldg Corp.
...Co., 219 N.Y. 415, 418, 114 N.E. 808, 809; Wohlfron v. Brooklyn Edison Co., 238 App.Div. 463, 465, 265 N.Y.S. 18, 20, affirmed 263 N.Y. 547, 189 N.E. 691; Labor Law, § 200; cf. Koenig v. Patrick Constr. Corp., 298 N.Y. 313, 317, 83 N.E.2d 133, 134, 10 A.L.R.2d 848). The trial court's charge......