Case Name: William Rook, Respondent, v. New Jersey and Pennsylvania Concentrating Works, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-02
Citations: 83 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 54
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Rook, Respondent, v. New Jersey and Pennsylvania Concentrating Works, Appellant.
Judges: Dykman, J., concurred; Cullen, J., concurred in the result.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 83
Pages: 54–55

Head Matter:
William Rook, Respondent, v. New Jersey and Pennsylvania Concentrating Works, Appellant.
Action to recover damages for personal injuries ■— maintainable against both the contractor and the third party.
Where a contractor, being short of laborers, borrows a gang of men from a third party, and under the orders of the foreman of such third party one of such laborers is put in a dangerous place where he receives injuries, an action to recover the damages resulting therefrom is maintainable against the contractor and also against the third party.
Appeal by the defendant, The New Jersey and Pennsylvania Concentrating Works, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Orange on the 30th day of June, 1893, upon the verdict of a jury for $4,000 after a trial at the Orange County Circuit, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 25th day of July, 1893, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Theo. B. Steele, for tlie appellant.
John 21. Gardner, for tlie respondent.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.:
We tliink tlie Circuit judge ruled correctly on all points, and that no error of law was committed.
The point made by defendant, that the building was being erected by an independent contractor, and that he only should be held responsible, cannot be available upon the facts shown. The plaintiff was not in the service of tlie contractor, but of defendant.
The contractor being short of laborers, " borrowed from defendant a gang of men," among whom was the plaintiff.
Under the orders of defendant's foreman he was put into a dangerous place, where he received his injuries. Upon the facts he could recover against the contractor, and also against the defendant. His action was, therefore, well brought, and the verdict must stand.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Dykman, J., concurred; Cullen, J., concurred in the result.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.