The action of the court in taking the case from the jury was improvident in the presence of issues of fact concerning the claim made against defendant-appellant that it failed to provide safe working conditions (Labor Law, § 240), as the result of which plaintiff-respondent was injured. Plaintiff's expert was permitted to testify concerning a locking device he never saw; the workman who had knowledge of whether the device had been locked was never called to testify;...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
