TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rook v. New Jersey & Pennsylvania Concentrating Works

ROOK v. NEW JERSEY & P. CONCENTRATING WORKS

Rook v. N.J. & Pa. Concentrating Works, 27 N.Y.S. 623 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1894)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
February 12, 1894
Judges
Peatt
Citations
27 N.Y.S. 62383 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 5459 N.Y. St. Rep. 610
Cited by 3
Headnotes
Master and Servant—Injuries to Servant. In an action by a servant for personal injuries, the defense that the injury was caused by an independent contractor is not available where it appears that plaintiff was in the employ of defendant, and that the contractor, being short of laborers, “borrowed” from defendant a gang of men, one of whom was plaintiff, and that plaintiff was working under the orders of defendant’s foreman at the time of the injury.
Summary
Appeal from circuit court, Orange county. Action by William Eook against the New Jersey & Pennsylvania Concentrating Works to recover $25,000 damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant in improperly constructing a building known as “Stock House No. 3,” at Edison, N. J. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $4,000, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made on the minutes, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Peatt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PEATT, J.

We think the circuit judge ruled correctly on all points, and that no error of law was committed. The point made by defendant that the building was being erected by an independent contractor, and that he only should be held responsible, cannot be available upon the facts shown. The plaintiff was not in the service of the contractor, but of defendant. The contractor, being short of laborers, “borrowed” from defendant a gang of men, among whom was the plaintiff. Under the orders of defendant’s foreman, he was put into a dangerous place, where he received his injuries. Upon the facts, he could recover against the contractor, and also against the defendant. His action was therefore well brought, and the verdict must stand. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →
1898: 21900: 118982026peak 1898 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. The Magdaline91 F. 798 (E.D.N.Y. 1898)
  2. Grasso v. The Lisnacrieve87 F. 570 (E.D.N.Y. 1898)
  3. Toledo Brewing & Malting Co. v. Bosch101 F. 530 (6th Cir. 1900)

Most recent

  1. Toledo Brewing & Malting Co. v. Bosch101 F. 530 (6th Cir. 1900)
  2. The Magdaline91 F. 798 (E.D.N.Y. 1898)
  3. Grasso v. The Lisnacrieve87 F. 570 (E.D.N.Y. 1898)

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