Case ID: ny_59/html/0646-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Folger, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Ackert, Appellant, v. Gilbert V. Lansing et al., Respondents.
    (Argued December 7, 1874;
    decided December 15, 1874.)
    One owning a saw mill and carrying on the business of sawing logs for others, owes a duty to his customers that the mill and its appliances shall he reasonably safe for those having a right or license to come into it for business purposes; and for damages arising from a neglect of this duty he is liable.
    This was an action to recover damages for injuries received in defendants’ mill, as alleged through their negligence.
    Plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that defendants owned and run the mill, doing custom work. They solicited plaintiff to bring his logs to their mill, and this he did and went to the mill for the purpose of giving some directions to the sawyer about the sawing. While waiting the sawyer’s leisure and the stoppage of the saws, the noise of which prevented conversation, a plank that was being straight-edged, handled by one of the defendants, caught in the saw and was whirled against the plaintiff, doing the injury complained of. The evidence also tended to show that a similar accident had occurred a few days previously to defendants’ knowledge. The cause of the injury, as claimed by defendants, was that the-rollers were not rightly placed; as claimed by plaintiff, it was the negligence of the defendant who was handling the plank. At the close of the evidence defendants’ counsel moved for a nonsuit, on the grounds, substantially, that they owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, and that plaintiff was chargeable with carelessness in going into the mill. The motion was granted. Held, error; that at least the questions of negligence and contributory negligence should have been submitted to the-jury. The court stating the rule substantially as above, citing Swords v. Edgar (ante, p. 28).
    
      R. A. Parmenter for the appellant.
    
      E. F. Bullard for the respondents.
   Folger, J.,

reads for reversal and new trial.

All concur.

Judgment reversed.