Hyperlawhypertext legal database Pellegrino v. Clarence L. Smith Co. 156 N.Y.S. 1138

← Cases

Pellegrino v. Clarence L. Smith Co.

156 N.Y.S. 1138 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1916-01-07 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1138
Cesidio PELLEGRINO, appellant, v. Clarence L. SMITH COMPANY, respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
January 7, 1916.)

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. We think that this case, on the present record, does not fall within the doctrine of Citrone v. O’Rourke Eng. Const. Co., 188 N. Y. 339 , 80 N. E. 1092 , 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 340 . According to plaintiff’s testimony there was an assurance by defendant’s representative that no danger existed, and a promise of notification when danger should become imminent. This brings the case within the doctrine of Rice v. Eureka Paper Co., 174 N. Y. 385 , 66 N. E. 979 , 62 L. R. A. 611 , 95 Am. St. Rep. 585 . Jenks, P. J., and. Thomas, Carr, Mills, and Rich, JJ., concur.

Cases cited