From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Korber v. Ottman Lithographing Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Feb 1, 1906
49 Misc. 462 (N.Y. App. Term 1906)

Opinion

February, 1906.

William A. Jones, Jr. (David M. Wolff of counsel), for appellant.

August P. Wagener (Frank Herwig of counsel), for respondent.


I cannot distinguish this case from Hussey v. Coger, 112 N.Y. 614; and Crispin v. Babbitt, 81 id. 516.

Although the superintendent might have been the representative of the defendant corporation in all matters which it was the master's duty to perform, still his act in negligently holding, or failing to hold, the ladder on which the plaintiff was standing at the time of the accident was not an act which pertained to the duty of a master to perform, but was the act of a fellow servant, like the act of the superintendent in the Hussey case, in leaving the hatch open, and the Crispin case, in starting the machinery while the plaintiff was in a position of danger.

The order should be reversed, with costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion granted.

SCOTT and GREENBAUM, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, with costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion granted.


Summaries of

Korber v. Ottman Lithographing Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Feb 1, 1906
49 Misc. 462 (N.Y. App. Term 1906)
Case details for

Korber v. Ottman Lithographing Co.

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD KORBER, Respondent, v . THE J. OTTMAN LITHOGRAPHING COMPANY…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Feb 1, 1906

Citations

49 Misc. 462 (N.Y. App. Term 1906)
97 N.Y.S. 1044

Citing Cases

Shugrue v. Providence Telephone Co.

We think not. The foreman was simply carrying out one of the details of the work and if his negligence, as…