Case Name: Maurice J. Breen, Appellant, v. Philip H. Gill, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-04-24
Citations: 125 A.D. 642
Docket Number: 
Parties: Maurice J. Breen, Appellant, v. Philip H. Gill, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 642–647

Head Matter:
Maurice J. Breen, Appellant, v. Philip H. Gill, Respondent.
Second Department,
April 24, 1908.
Negligence — complaint against contractor for failure to guard excavation.
It is error to dismiss a complaint alleging that plaintiff and others were working on certain premises; that there was a Walk along the water’s edge for their use in their work; that defendant was engaged in doing work on the same premises; that in the doing thereof he made an excavation along said walk and negligently left it unguarded, whereby plaintiff fell into it while going along the walk in the performance of his duties.
Plaintiff was not a trespasser or licensee, but was there of right.
Jenks and Miller, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiff, IVIauiice J. Breen, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 10th day cf January, 1905, upon the dismissal of the complaint upon the pleadings ai, the Kings County Trial Term.
Herbert C. Smyth [Charles C. Sanders and Richard A. Irving with him on the brief], for the appellant.
Knowlton Durham [Frank Verner Johnson with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Gaynor, J. :
It seems to me indisputable that the dismissal of the complaint for not stating a cause of action was error. It is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff and other workmen were working upon the premises of the American Linseed Oil Company; that for the use of the said workmen in their work there was a plank walk at a place along the water's edge which was about 40 feet long and 2 feet wide; that the defendant was engaged in doing work in the construction of a grain elevator on the said premises; and in the doing thereof he dug an excavation about 5 feet square and 7 feet deep along said walk, and negligently left it unguarded, whereby the plaintiff fell into it while going along the said walk in the performance of his duties. I see no question of trespasser or licensee in the case. The defendant had nothing to give a license of. He was only there doing work on the premises of another where many men were employed, and made an excavation along a little established highway of the place, constructed and established for the use of the men and which they had to use in their work, and negligently omitted the .everyday precaution and duty of guarding it. There is no room to talk of the plaintiff as a trespasser or licensee. On the contrary, he was there as of right.
The judgment should be reversed.
Hooker and Bich, JJ., concurred; Jenks, J., read for affirmance, with whom Miller, J., concurred.