Case ID: nys_121/html/0594-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RESNICK v. BOOKHOP.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    March 10, 1910.)
    Master and Servant (§ 150)—Warning and Instructing Servants.
    A master, failing to properly instruct a servant as to the danger of a machine the latter was operating, was negligent.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 297-.307; Dec. Dig. § 150.]
    Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
    Action by Morris Resnick against Frederick M. Bookhop. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed, and new trial ordered.
    
      Argued before SEABURY, GUY, and WHITNEY, JJ.
    Morris Meyers (Henry Swartz, of counsel),,for appellant.
    James <33. Henney (E. Clyde Sherwood, of counsel), for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

Taking the view most favorable to the plaintiff on the evidence, it is sufficient to go to the jury upon the question whether the defendant performed his full duty of giving the plaintiff proper instruction as to the danger of the machine which he was operating. Pelow v. Oil Well Supply Co., 194 N. Y. 64, 69, 86 N. E. 812. If defendant did not do so, he was guilty of negligence, and the jury could have found that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.