TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Burris v. American Chicle Co.

Burris v. Am. Chicle Co., 29 F. Supp. 773 (E.D.N.Y. 1939)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, E.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
October 20, 1939
Docket
No. 434
Judges
Galston
Citations
29 F. Supp. 7731939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2137

Opinion — Galston

GALSTON, District Judge.

Plaintiff sues for personal injuries sustained as a result of the failure of the defendant to comply with Sec. 202 of the Labor Law of the State of New York, Consol. Laws N.Y. c. 31, and the certain rules of the Industrial Board of the Department of Labor of the State of New York. The law and the regulations relate to safety devices intended for the protection of persons engaged in window cleaning.

The defendant, pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, seeks to have the Ashland Window & House Cleaning Co., Inc., brought in as a party defendant.

The application is resisted by the plaintiff among other grounds because the plaintiff would have no right of action against the Ashland Window & House Cleaning Co., Inc. That, however, is not determinative of the question presented by the motion. It appears from the affidavits that the cleaning of the windows at the premises in question was done pursuant to a contract entered into by the defendant with the proposed third party defendant, and it is averred that if the plaintiff sustained injuries because of any lack of scaffolds, ladders or suitable equipment it was because of the failure of the Ashland Window and House Cleaning Co., Inc., to comply with the terms of its contract with the defendant.

In these circumstances Rule 14 applies, for the defendant, as a third-party plaintiff, may bring in “a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him or to the plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him.”

Motion granted on condition that the defendant serve the proposed summons and complaint within ten days from the entry of the order on this motion.

Settle order on notice.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1939: 11940: 11941: 11944: 11945: 11951: 119392026peak 1939 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gray v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.31 F. Supp. 299 (W.D. La. 1940)
  2. Schram v. Roney30 F. Supp. 458 (E.D. Mich. 1939)
  3. Davis v. Associated Indemnity Corporation56 F. Supp. 541 (M.D. Penn. 1944)
  4. Brady v. Black Diamond S. S. Co.45 F. Supp. 338 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)
  5. Shannon v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.62 F. Supp. 532 (W.D. La. 1945)
  6. Globe Electric Repair Co. v. Eagle Indemnity Co.79 Pa. D. & C. 201 (1951)

Most recent

  1. Globe Electric Repair Co. v. Eagle Indemnity Co.79 Pa. D. & C. 201 (1951)
  2. Shannon v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.62 F. Supp. 532 (W.D. La. 1945)
  3. Davis v. Associated Indemnity Corporation56 F. Supp. 541 (M.D. Penn. 1944)
  4. Brady v. Black Diamond S. S. Co.45 F. Supp. 338 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)
  5. Gray v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.31 F. Supp. 299 (W.D. La. 1940)
  6. Schram v. Roney30 F. Supp. 458 (E.D. Mich. 1939)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list