From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pellegrino v. Clarence L. Smith Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1917
176 App. Div. 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)

Opinion

January, 1917.


Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Defendant was not shown to have been negligent. The foreman's statement to plaintiff, half an hour before the accident, that the face of the rock excavation was not dangerous, did not make defendant liable for such an error of judgment as was shown by the result. ( Mattson v. Phœnix Construction Co., 135 App. Div. 234; Scott v. Delaware, Lackawanna W.R.R. Co., 148 id. 697, 701; Maguire v. Barrett, 168 id. 836.) The foreman's alleged further remark that in case of danger he would warn plaintiff, followed by his giving no warning before the accident, indicated that the foreman remained of the same opinion. This was not a defect in "ways." ( Fresusk v. Pittsburg Contracting Co., 159 App. Div. 356.) A defendant who appoints an experienced and competent foreman does not thereby guarantee his judgment or that he will not make mistakes in judging of appearances in the course of an excavation. Jenks, P.J., Carr and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Mills and Rich, JJ., voted to affirm.


Summaries of

Pellegrino v. Clarence L. Smith Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1917
176 App. Div. 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)
Case details for

Pellegrino v. Clarence L. Smith Company

Case Details

Full title:CESIDIO PELLEGRINO, Respondent, v. CLARENCE L. SMITH COMPANY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 1, 1917

Citations

176 App. Div. 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)