Case Name: John La Rocca, Respondent, v. Stephen J. Farrington et al., Doing Business as S. J. Farrington Iron Works, Appellants, and Turner Dock Transfer Co., Inc., Respondent and Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1950-07-11
Citations: 301 N.Y. 247
Docket Number: 
Parties: John La Rocca, Respondent, v. Stephen J. Farrington et al., Doing Business as S. J. Farrington Iron Works, Appellants, and Turner Dock Transfer Co., Inc., Respondent and Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 301
Pages: 247–254

Head Matter:
John La Rocca, Respondent, v. Stephen J. Farrington et al., Doing Business as S. J. Farrington Iron Works, Appellants, and Turner Dock Transfer Co., Inc., Respondent and Appellant.
Argued May 17, 1950;
decided July 11, 1950.
Patrick E. Gibbons and Patrick J. McCann for Stephen J. Farrington and another, appellants.
I. The Appellate Division was in error in reversing the decision of the trial court. (Muscelli v. Starr Contr. Co., 296 N. Y. 330; Caldarola v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 295 N. Y. 463; Cullings v. Goetz, 256 N. Y. 287; Mayor of City of Albany v. Cunliff, 2 N. Y. 165; Santise v. Martins, Inc., 258 App. Div. 663; MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N. Y. 382; Hoisting Engine Sales Co. v. Hart, 237 N. Y. 30; Liverani v. Clark & Son, 231 N. Y. 178; Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85.) II. The trial court erred in refusing to charge as requested by defendant Farrington. (Liverani v. Clark & Son, 231 N. Y. 178; O’Doherty v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 134 App. Div. 298; Sieracki v. Seas Shipping Co., 149 F. 2d 98.) III. Defendant Farrington was entitled to recover over against defendant Turner on its cross complaint. (Hoisting Engine Sales Co. v. Hart, 237 N. Y. 30; McSpedon v. Kunz, 271 N. Y. 131; Eisenbach v. Gimbel Bros., 281 N. Y. 474; Union Stock Yards Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 196 U. S. 217.)
William L. Shumate and Samuel E. Swiggett for Turner Dock Transfer Co., Inc., appellant and respondent.
I. Defendant Turner having entirely divested itself of possession and control of the crane under a lease entered into many months prior to the accident owed no duty to plaintiff with respect to the condition of the chain. Therefore, the trial court was correct in dismissing the complaint as against Turner. (Muscelli v. Starr Contr. Co., 296 N. Y. 330; Auten v. Bennett, 183 N. Y. 496; Cullings v. Goetz, 256 N. Y. 287; Kohrn v. Boyer Lighterage Corp., 262 App. Div. 762; Witty v. Matthews, 52 N. Y. 512; Mirsky v. Seaich Realty Co., 256 App. Div. 658; Hartfield v. Roper, 21 Wend. 615; Eklof v. Waterston, 132 Ore. 479; Pharm v. Lituchy, 283 N. Y. 130; Rufo v. South Brooklyn Sav. Bank, 268 App. Div. 1057; Noone v. Perlberg, Inc., 268 App. Div. 149, 294 N. Y. 680.) II. As to defendant Turner the verdict was contrary to the law as charged and it was, therefore, error to reinstate it unless it can be said as matter of law that Turner had violated a duty owing to plaintiff. III. In no event would Farrington be entitled to recover over against Turner on common-law principles of indemnity for the reason that the two defendants, if guilty of any fault at all, are guilty of the same fault, i.e., failure to discover and remedy the defect. (Hoisting Engine Sales Co. v. Hart, 237 N. Y. 30; League Cycle Co. v. Abrahams, 27 Misc. 548; Union Stockyards Co. v. Chicago B. & Q. R. R. Co., 196 U. S. 217.)
Ralph Stout, Hyman Goldberg and Louis Rothbard for plaintiff, respondent.
Upon the evidence the question of defendants’ negligence was one of fact which was properly submitted to the jury. (Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N. Y. 397; Loop v. Litchfield, 42 N. Y. 351; Devlin v. Smith, 89 N. Y. 470; Connors v. Great Northern Elevator Co., 90 App. Div. 311, 180 N. Y. 509; Kahner v. Otis Elevator Co., 96 App. Div. 169, 183 N. Y. 512; MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 153 App. Div. 474, 217 N. Y. 382; Junkermann v. Tilyou Realty Co., 213 N. Y. 404.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
On the facts of this case — which are sufficiently stated in the dissenting opinion filed herewith — it was error for the trial court to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and dismiss his complaint. We agree that the Appellate Division quite properly reinstated the verdict against the defendants-appellants, the Turner and Farrington companies, on the authority of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (217 N. Y. 382). The uncontradicted testimony of the expert that the crack in the fracture face of the link that broke had existed for at least two years and its existence was reasonably discoverable by visual inspection, established, prima facie, that use of the crane was imminently dangerous to any person in the vicinity of its boom (cf. Adams v. White Constr. Co., 299 N. Y. 641). The principle of the MacPherson case (supra) is ho longer limited to manufacturers but has been extended to " suppliers "as well, a designation which also covers owners and lessors (see Restatement, Torts, § 388, 408; Connors v. Great Northern Elevator Co., 90 App. Div. 311, affd. 180 N. Y. 509; Richards v. Texas Co., 245 App. Div. 797, motion for leave to appeal denied 268 N. Y. 728; MacKibbin v. Wilson & English Constr. Co., 263 App. Div. 1014, motion for leave to appeal denied 288 N. Y. 738). Maritime cases such as Muscelli v. Starr Contr. Co. (296 N. Y. 330) and Caldarola v. Moore-McCormack Lines (295 N. Y. 463) are distinguishable under the maritime ruling placing full responsibility upon a charter party.
The fact that the plaintiff's employer,'as lessee of the crane; had an equal opportunity to discover the defect and would thus be within the compass of the MacPherson doctrine does not serve to relieve the owner of liability (Wanamaker v. Otis Elevator Co., 228 N. Y. 192).
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.