Case ID: ny_218/html/0703-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary Dooley, as Administratrix of the Estate of James Dooley, Deceased, Respondent, v. Hay Foundry and Iron Works, Appellant.
    
      Dooley v. Hay Foundry & Iron Works, 166 App. Div. 896, affirmed.
    (Argued May 12, 1916;
    decided June 6, 1916.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 23, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate- alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of defendant, his employer. The deceased was standing on an engine which was being lifted from the sub-basement of a building to the street, when the engine fell, and he sustained in j uries which resulted in his death. The engine had been used by the defendant for the purpose of furnishing power during the construction of the building. As the work for which it was required was finished, it was being taken out of the building for the purpose of removing it to the defendant’s yard. The deceased was the engineer who had run this engine for the defendant on the job. It was being hoisted out of the sub-basement by means of its own power, and the deceased, therefore, remained on the engine for the purpose of operating it. The engine was almost up to the street floor when it fell. The case was submitted to the jury solely for them to determine whether the defendant had adopted an improper method in raising the engine.
    
      Theodore H. Lord and Lyman A. Spalding for appellant.
    
      Rutherford B. Meyer and Eugene Lamb Richards for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Hisoocic, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Seabury and Pound, JJ.