Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank
Bernt Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
Under the trial court’s instructions, which were not excepted to by plaintiff and thereby constituted the law of the case, it was error to set aside the jury’s verdict in favor of defendant bank. As to defendants architects and engineers, the evidence showed that their sole supervisory function was to insure performance of the construction work in accordance with the plans and specifications; to see that standards of safety were met in relation to the permanent construction, adjacent buildings, streets and subways, but not the safety of temporary platforms used in connection with the permanent construction work. There being no duty, we do not reach the question of liability to a third party by reason of nonfeasance.
The judgment should be affirmed, without costs.
Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis, Burke and Foster concur.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 48 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals4
- Federal District Courts1
- State Highest Courts2
- State Appellate Courts38
- State Trial Courts2
- State Specialty Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Lipka v. United States
- Associated Engineers, Inc. v. Job
- Krieger v. J. E. Greiner Co.
- Welch v. Grant Development Co.
- Porter v. Stevens, Thompson & Runyan, Inc.
- Agnes Lipka, as Administratrix of the Estate, Goods, Chattels and Credits of Walter J. Lipka, Sr., Deceased, and Individually as Widow and Next of Kin of Said Walter J. Lipka, and John E. Abbott v. United States v. Vaughn Construction Corporation Olga Sicko, as Administratrix of the Estate, Goods, Chattels and Credits of John Sicko, Deceased, and Individually as Widow and Next of Kin of Said John Sicko, Deceased v
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.