TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lee v. Cranford Company, Incorporated

Patrick J. Lee, Appellant, v. Cranford Company, Incorporated, Respondent

Lee v. Cranford Co., 130 N.E. 917 (N.Y. 1921)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 1, 1921
Citations
130 N.E. 917230 N.Y. 6181921 N.Y. LEXIS 896
Headnotes
Negligence — master and servant — when employee of truckman sent with a team and truck to do work for third party who is injured in performance thereof is in special employ of latter and his remedy is confined to that provided under Workmen’s Compensation Law.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 2, 1918, which affirmed a judgment entered upon an order of the court at a Trial Term setting aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff and directing a dismissal of the complaint in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant. Plaintiff was in the employ of a truckman as a driver. His employer had a contract with defendant to furnish it from time to time with teams and drivers at a stipulated rate per day. Defendant was engaged in constructing the Flatbush Avenue subway in the borough of Brooklyn and on the day of the accident plaintiff was sent by his employer with a truck and horses to perform services for defendant under said contract. When he arrived at defendant’s works he was directed by one of defendant’s foremen to take his horses from his employer’s truck and hitch them to one of defendant’s trucks and haul it to a place indicated. While the truck was being unloaded plaintiff was injured throught the negligence of defendant’s servants. The trial court and Appellate Division held that plaintiff was in the special employ of the defendant at the time of his injury and, therefore, his sole remedy is found under the Workmen’s Compensation Law.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound and McLaughlin, JJ. Dissenting: Hogan, Crane and Andrews, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

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

1921: 11958: 119212026peak 1921 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lee v. Cranford Company, Incorporated132 N.E. 884 (N.Y. 1921)
  2. Myers v. May5 A.D.2d 963 (1958)

Most recent

  1. Myers v. May5 A.D.2d 963 (1958)
  2. Lee v. Cranford Company, Incorporated132 N.E. 884 (N.Y. 1921)

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