From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thornton v. Lennon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 1, 1898
29 App. Div. 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)

Opinion

May Term, 1898.


Judgment and order reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.


This action was brought to recover damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff's intestate, causing his death, by the falling of a building of which the defendant was the owner, and which was alleged to have been negligently constructed. An examination of this record seems to show that a recovery was had in this case because another party had succeeded in obtaining a judgment in another action. But the crucial proof which sustained the judgment which was affirmed by this court is entirely absent from the case at bar. In the case of Pitcher v. Lennon ( 12 App. Div. 356) the defendant was held liable because it was established that he superintended the erection, gave directions as to what should be done, furnished the plans to the contractors which contravened the law, supplied the materials and ordered the granite blocks and templates whose too narrow distribution of weight caused the fall and violated the statute. In the case at bar there is no such proof as this. No plans or specifications are in evidence, and nothing is shown as to their contents, nor does the participation of the defendant appear, and the case seems to be fatally defective in that regard. It is true that there is evidence that the defendant was around the premises for a little while almost every day, but it is further in evidence that he did not interfere with the mechanical construction when the wall was being built. It is claimed by the respondent that the defendant is liable in contracting for and directing an unlawful act in violation of the statute to one injured thereby. But as has already been shown. there is no evidence that he either contracted for the thing done, or had anything to do in respect to its direction. The absence of the plans seems to be fatal to the plaintiff's judgment in the case at bar. The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event. Barrett, Rumsey, Ingraham and McLaughlin, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Thornton v. Lennon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 1, 1898
29 App. Div. 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)
Case details for

Thornton v. Lennon

Case Details

Full title:John Thornton, as Administrator, etc., of Frank Thornton, Deceased…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 1, 1898

Citations

29 App. Div. 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)
51 N.Y.S. 433