Case ID: nys_27/html/0623-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PEATT, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROOK v. NEW JERSEY & P. CONCENTRATING WORKS.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    February 12, 1894.)
    Master and Servant—Injuries to Servant.
    In an action by a servant for personal injuries, the defense that the injury was caused by an independent contractor is not available where it appears that plaintiff was in the employ of defendant, and that the contractor, being short of laborers, “borrowed” from defendant a gang of men, one of whom was plaintiff, and that plaintiff was working under the orders of defendant’s foreman at the time of the injury.
    Appeal from circuit court, Orange county.
    Action by William Eook against the New Jersey & Pennsylvania Concentrating Works to recover $25,000 damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant in improperly constructing a building known as “Stock House No. 3,” at Edison, N. J. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $4,000, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made on the minutes, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before DYKMAN and PEATT, JJ.
    Theo. B. Steele, for appellant.
    John M. Gardner, for respondent.
   PEATT, J.

We think the circuit judge ruled correctly on all points, and that no error of law was committed. The point made by defendant that the building was being erected by an independent contractor, and that he only should be held responsible, cannot be available upon the facts shown. The plaintiff was not in the service of the contractor, but of defendant. The contractor, being short of laborers, “borrowed” from defendant a gang of men, among whom was the plaintiff. Under the orders of defendant’s foreman, he was put into a dangerous place, where he received his injuries. Upon the facts, he could recover against the contractor, and also against the defendant. His action was therefore well brought, and the verdict must stand. Judgment affirmed, with costs.