Latronica v. Damergy
Pasquale Latronica, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Zarifa (Also Known as Zarafa) Damergy and Said Damergy, Defendants-Appellants
Opinion of the Court
Bodine, J.
The parties to this suit were adjoining property owners. The defendants had employed a plumber to install on their premises a hot water heater attached to an oil burner. The hot water attachment, during the time the plumber was still checking the operation thereof, exploded because of lack of water damaging plaintiff’s premises for which the District Court awarded damages. This was error. There was no proof that the explosion was due to defendants’ negligence.
Marshall v. Welwood, 38
339.
There was no proof that the plumber was known to be an unskillful or improper person to do the work.
Cuff v. Newark, New York Railroad Co., 35
17;
Sarno v. Gulf Refining Co., 99
Id.
340;
affirmed, 102 Id.
223.
The plaintiff having failed to establish a right of recovery the judgment is reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.