Case Name: Frieda Kaehler et al., Plaintiffs v. North German Lloyd, Appellant, and Atlantic Basin Iron Works, Inc., Defendant-Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1943-01-14
Citations: 289 N.Y. 407
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frieda Kaehler et al., Plaintiffs v. North German Lloyd, Appellant, and Atlantic Basin Iron Works, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 289
Pages: 407–410

Head Matter:
Frieda Kaehler et al., Plaintiffs v. North German Lloyd, Appellant, and Atlantic Basin Iron Works, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.
Submitted December 4, 1942;
decided January 14, 1943.
William L. Shumate for appellant.
Plaintiffs recovered against the steamship company solely upon the theory that the bench had been improperly and negligently constructed in the first instance. (Wanamaker v. Otis Elevator Co., 228 N. Y. 192; Williams v. N. Y. & Q. El. L. & P. Co., 222 N. Y. 663; Rumetsch v. Wanamaker, 216 N. Y. 379.) The trial court properly instructed the jury that if they found a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs against the carrier they must also find a verdict in favor of such carrier against the construction company. (Village of Port Jervis v. First Nat. Bank, 96 N. Y. 550; Carleton v. Lombard, Ayres & Co., 149 N. Y. 137; Bessey v. Driscoll, 202 App. Div. 817; Gray v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 72 App. Div. 424; 175 N. Y. 448; Loopesko v. Upham, 187 N. Y. S. 195; Stahl v. Niagara De Luxe Cab Co., 135 Misc. 859.)
Walter E. Warner, Jr., for respondent.
The carrier tampered with the bench and substituted iron screws and hinges during its operation of the steamship. (Hull v. Littauer, 162 N. Y. 569; Deregibus v. Saracco, 225 App. Div. 354; St. Andrassy v. Mooney, 262 N. Y. 368.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The complaint, as limited by the bill of particulars accused defendant of one kind of negligence only, i. e., faulty construction. There was no real or substantial evidence of negligent maintenance of the bench. The trial court's charge to the jury which limited the basis for recovery, and to which no exception was taken, was therefore correct. In this situation, a verdict for plaintiff against the carrier necessarily imported a finding of negli gent construction and so justified a verdict over in favor of that defendant against the impleaded defendant.
The judgment of the Appellate Division so far as appealed from, should be reversed and that of the trial court, affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.
Judgment accordingly.