Case Name: Bartholomew A. Cavanagh, Respondent, v. Patrick McGovern et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Patrick McGovern & Company, Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-12-04
Citations: 222 N.Y. 534
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bartholomew A. Cavanagh, Respondent, v. Patrick McGovern et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Patrick McGovern & Company, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 222
Pages: 534–536

Head Matter:
Bartholomew A. Cavanagh, Respondent, v. Patrick McGovern et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Patrick McGovern & Company, Appellants.
Cavanagh v. McGovern, 167 App. Div. 926, affirmed.
(Argued November 1, 1917;
decided December 4, 1917.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 22, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendants, his employers. Plaintiff was in the service of the defendants as a magazine keeper on subway construction work being prosecuted by the defendants along Lexington avenue in Manhattan, New York city. One of the duties assigned to him in this work by the defendants’ head blaster was to test certain exploders or fuses by means of a testing machine. The work was of a dangerous character; and while he was engaged in it one of the fuses exploded, inflicting the inj uries complained of. The defendants were charged with negligence in the following particulars: (1) In failing to instruct the plaintiff as to the manner of detecting when fuses were defective and in failing to warn him as to what would happen if defective fuses were applied to the testing machine; (2) in failing to promulgate proper rules and regulations for the performance of such work; and (3) in failing to supply the plaintiff with the proper tools and appliances for the performance of such work. In their answer the defendants pleaded substantially a general denial and, as separate defenses, contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff and assumption of risk.
Herman S. Hertwig and A. Leo Everett for appellants.
James I. Cuff and T. Louis A. Britt for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Pound and Andrews, JJ.