The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-11-08
EMPLOYERS LgaBfLIry

% HE s~rvant has been extended t- nns =,
the latest decisi5ns Of the Court ~ ,rp.,r,
to cover acts committed outside II "a.
employment % the servant, on The ,h..r,
Of negligence or nuisance lnth 80 A.
cidsd the employer was Q manufa t,-tn,
irm, and when com plant Was mad = m.
acts Of workmen In the factory tho a,r
warned the workmsn To CEASE such a.'. a,
q threat OF disrharxing them unls-- tb.v
complied. Tho acts were not stopped and
the court holds that the action tas-n hy
the employers was insufficient
The case was Mary a. Howle w. N" frank.
lin Manufacturing Company ~ Syraru..
The rear Of the lot on which tho pIaint,s.
house stood adIoined the land ~ the d.
PENDANT. on which Was an AUTOMOBILE, mann.
featuring plant. rhe employees % the "a.
PENDANT had been In the habit of tkroatn,
nuts, bolts and other pieces of iron iror,
the windows OF tho factory onto the r.,.
OF the plaintiffs premises. The plnn,r,
husband picked up q handful OF the nun.
and bolts ont OF his garden and toos rA.u
to the president of tho defendant COMPANY
and said he wanted the practice -tOIr~t "a,
fear som. one would he hurt Tn" pr...
dent said he was glad he had been notIA.d
and would s-- that Il was stopped Tn.
president and his foreman then warned ,hs
employees that any person s~en throwing,
anything upon tho plaintiffs lot would ha
dischar sed. The practice continued uuu
l,naliy when Mrs Hosle was in her garden
one day A niece Of iron WAS thrown f,oc,
. window OF tho factory and inflicted A
severe wound on her arm.
The plaintiff sued on the ground ~ n.sIi.
renee and sot verdict. but the trial iuds.
Get IL aside bccauss the acts Of tn. defend.
ants w0rkmen were not done within IN.
scope OF their employment. and suggested
that an action for nuisance was the proper
remedy. The plaintiff then sued bo'h "a
negligence and nuisance and got verdict,
which the Court OF Appeals no~ af,rms
Judge vann, writing tho opinion. said
while We ell think Ina, the recovery should h.
sustained. ne differ somewhat a. IN the euc,
theory upon which u should be based
u the evidence established cause for Action for
negligence for falling tn lake reasonable precsu.
lions To suppress me e,ii prscuoe sien - eiosns
tne sinao~s on seseenhs mem WE Nne ns'nnt
" ~, sns evy .. "
~. ~, W.. "n'pAm
,,I..,,.. AZ ,nsy ,,,. no, ,sy,~n IN an. 80.
&C.. a, the ms.tr,, husin.... hut an no, 80.
reasonable care to prevent them from bs,ns
thrown In other words II would rest ou relative
and not an absolute duty. ~. on the other hant
the evidence established an action for nuis.ne.
the rulings 90 the Court were more faVorsbE- 70
the defendant than q was euu'led 10. becaus. u.
ability for injury from NUISANCE 10 no, relary,
but absolute. and proof OF the negligence "a zoe
hand and the absence thereof On The other 10 ~,
required.
Tia cons, ..v. ,h., -hivh .u,hor,,v a..
ra,,,n, ., .u.,.i, an. iuA.r,.r, halo A..
."'. ~l
~ -. $500.
pn.o,,.c p.i,,.y In ~h,ch an .un,ny.s =,
~. t.,.nt.n, ,.,,,.t .,,n,-d a, IN. ~,
.e,,ion Of two streets tn let n repair rr,i,
nas. IL had been the railroads. custom :,
permit its vorkm~a IN the repair tram 20
hiring hack with them NJ niuht niscss ~
-.
REFUSE umoer 10 use As nrsWoon, when 'h-
workm~n threw OF the train at the points
80 - rA- ,-t...~ -