Case Name: Koosorowska v. Glasser
Court: Buffalo Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-11-19
Citations: 8 N.Y.S. 197
Docket Number: 
Parties: Koosorowska v. Glasser.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 8
Pages: 197–201

Head Matter:
Koosorowska v. Glasser.
(Superior Court of Buffalo, General Term.
November 19, 1889.)
1. Master and Servant—Dangerous Premises—Knowledge op Servant.
In an action for the negligent killing of plaintiff’s intestate, it appeared that defendant had a contract for the construction of a tile sewer, and that in order to do the work properly it became necessary to excavate a trench 2% to 8 feet wide, and from 11 to 12 feet deep. The workmen doing the excavating had orders to throw the dirt well back; and, in addition, others were employed at the top to keep the dirt back from the edge of the trench. While at work in the bottom of the trench, laying tile, plaintiff’s intestate was killed by the caving in of the trench, which was caused by the fact that in this instance the excavated dirt was allowed to rest too near the edge. Meld that, as plaintiff’s intestate could not see the extent to which the soil had accumulated, his means of knowledge of the dangerous character of the work were not equal to those of defendant, who personally superintended the work, and who had heen at the place just before the accident happened.
8. Same—Fellow-Sebvants.
The fact that the fellow-servants of plaintiff’s intestate neglected to obey defendant’s order to remove the dirt does not exonerate defendant, as he is chargeable with negligence in not seeing that the order was obeyed.
8. Same—Contkibutoby Negligence.
Where defendant furnished braces for the sides of the trench, but objected to their use in this instance, stating that he would watch and give the alarm if the trench started to cave in, the failure of plaintiff’s intestate to use them is not conclusive evidence of contributory negligence.
4. Death by Wbongedl Act—Damages—Evidence.
In an action for the negligent killing of plaintiff’s intestate, it is not reversible error for the trial judge to permit plaintiff to show that her intestate left no property. Hatch, J., dissenting.
5. Same—Recklessness of Defendant.
Neither is it reversible error to admit in evidence a conversation had with defendant relative to the caving in of the trench at another point, some time before the accident, during which conversation defendant had said that if anybody had been killed the only loss would have been the cost of the man’s funeral. Hatch, J., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by A. Anastasia Koosorowska, administratrix, etc., against Peter Glasser, for the alleged negligent killing of her intestate. Plaintiff had a verdict, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial on the minutes defendant appeals.
Argued before Beckwith, C. J., and Hatch, J.
Tracy C. Becker, for appellant. F. R. March, for appellee.

Opinion:
Beckwith, C. J.,
held that the order should be affirmed, and that the motion for a new trial should be denied, but he filed no opinion.