Case Name: BREEN v. GILL
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-04-24
Citations: 110 N.Y.S. 64
Docket Number: 
Parties: BREEN v. GILL.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 110
Pages: 64–67

Head Matter:
(125 App. Div. 642.)
BREEN v. GILL.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
April 24, 1908.)
Negligence—Persons Liable—Pleading.
The complaint alleging that plaintiff and other workmen were working on the premises of A., that for the use of said workmen in their work there was a plank walk two feet wide, that defendant was engaged in doing work in the construction of an elevator on the premises, and that in doing it he dug an excavation several feet square and deep along said walk and negligently left it unguarded, whereby plaintiff fell into it while going along said walk in the performance of his duties, states a cause of action; no question of trespasser or licensee being involved.
Jenks and Miller, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Kings County.
Action by Maurice J. Breen against Philip H. Gill. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, RICH, and MIE-EER, JJ.
Herbert C. Smyth (Charles C. Sanders, on the brief), for appellant.
Knowlton Durham, for respondent.

Opinion:
GAYNOR, J.
It séems 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.
Judgment reversed, and new trial granted; costs to abide the event.
HOOKER and RICH, JJ., concur.