Case ID: nys_131/html/0182-01.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

SAWYER v. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    October 6, 1911.)
    ‘Appeal from Trial Term, Westchester County.
    Action by Thomas Sawyer against the Dravo Contracting Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before BURR, THOMAS, CARR, WOODWARD, and RICH, JJ.
    James F. Donnelly (Frederick W. Catlin, on the brief), for appellant.
    Thomas J. O’Neill (L. F. Fish, on the brief), for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

BURR, J.

I dissent. If the master was not negligent for failing to provide a safe place to work, the superintendent was under no obligation to inspect and see whether it was safe. The degree of care required of a superintendent is no higher than that required of the master. It possibly may be that this case does not fall within the doctrine of Citrone v. O’Rourke Contracting Co., 188 N. Y. 339, 80 N. E. 1092, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 340; hut plaintiff’s counsel, to avoid a possible exception, conceded that it did. AVhen he conceded that, he conceded away his ease, and plaintiff should have been nonsuited. It is impossible to tell under what rule the jury acted.