Case ID: nys_149/html/1078-12.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. BURR, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DUDDY v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    October 2, 1914.)
    Action by Annie Duddy, as administratrix, etc., of Michael Duddy, deceased, against the Standard Oil Company of New York and the Petroleum Iron Works Company.
   PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order af-. firmed, with costs.

BURR, J.,

dissents, on the ground that the fact (essential to plaintiff's recovery) that one of defendant's emplOy~s removed the lashing is. made to rest upon inference only. Probably that was a fact; but, if so, defendant should have' been allowed to prove that deceased knew of this fact. If he did, he either assumed the risk, or was guilty of contributory negligence, or both. The importance of this is apparent when we consider the court’s charge at folios 243-240. He also dissents on the ground that defendant should have been allowed to cross-examine the witness Grace freely (see folios 226, 227). With him JENKS, P. J., concurs.