Case Name: Videtto v. Dudley
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-02
Citations: 4 N.Y.S. 437
Docket Number: 
Parties: Videtto v. Dudley.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 4
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
Videtto v. Dudley.
(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.
February, 1889.)
1. Witness—Examination op Paett befobe Teiax.
In an action for injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant in selling to plaintiff a tool which the former knew was dangerous and unfit for use, plaintiff may have an order for the examination of the defendant before trial, for the purpose of showing that the defendant was the manufacturer of the said tool; such, fact bearing on the question of the negligence of the latter.
3. Same.
It is no objection to such order that the plaintiff could establish such fact by other witnesses than the defendant.
8. Same—Affidavit.
An allegation in the moving papers that the action is brought to recover damages for a personal injury resulting from defendant’s negligence sufficiently shows the nature of the action.
Appeal from special term.
Action by George W. Videtto against Francis D. Dudley. From an order vacating an order for the examination of the defendant before trial the plaintiff appeals.
Argued before Sedgwick, C. J.,' and Truax, J.
David Keane, for appellant. Friend <& House, for respondent.

Opinion:
Truax, J.
The action was brought to recover damages for injuries which the plaintiff alleges he sustained through the action of the defendants in selling the plaintiff an instrument or tool which the plaintiff alleges the defendants knew was dangerous and unfit for use. The allegation of the complaint "that the defendant did not exercise due care or skill in manufacturing the catheter" is not an allegation that the defendant did manufacture the' catheter, but it is relevant to one of the material issues of the action, namely, the negligence of the defendant in selling the instrument, for he would be more likely to know the nature of an instrument that he had made than he would be to know the nature of one that he had not made, and his obligation would be greater in the one case than iji the other. For this reason,—that is, because it tends to show the negligence of the defendant,—the plaintiff had a right to show by the defendant or any one else that the defendant manufactured the instrument. Nor is it necessary that the plaintiff should have alleged in his moving papers that there was no other witness by whom he could establish this fact. He has a right, if he sees fit, to call his adversary to prove his case.
It is objected by the defendant that the moving papers do not show "the nature of the action." This objection is not well taken. The allegation that the action is brought to recover damages for a personal injury resulting from defendant's negligence is a sufficient statement of the nature of the action. The plaintiff has complied with the requirements of the Code and the rules of practice, and was entitled to examine the defendant. The order vacating the order to examine the defendant as a party before trial is reversed, and the examination is directed to proceed, with costs of this appeal to the appellant.