Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
David Ackert, Appellant, v. Gilbert V. Lansing et al., Respondents, 1874 â 59 N.Y. 646 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
David Ackert, Appellant, v. Gilbert V. Lansing et al., Respondents
59 N.Y. 646·New York Court of Appeals·1874·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
David Ackert, Appellant, v. Gilbert V. Lansing et al., Respondents.
(Argued December 7, 1874;
decided December 15, 1874.)
One owning a saw mill and carrying on the business of sawing logs for others, owes a duty to his customers that the mill and its appliances shall he reasonably safe for those having a right or license to come into it for business purposes; and for damages arising from a neglect of this duty he is liable.
This was an action to recover damages for injuries received in defendantsâ mill, as alleged through their negligence.
Plaintiffâs evidence tended to show that defendants owned and run the mill, doing custom work. They solicited plaintiff to bring his logs to their mill, and this he did and went to the mill for the purpose of giving some directions to the sawyer about the sawing. While waiting the sawyerâs leisure and the stoppage of the saws, the noise of which prevented conversation, a plank that was being straight-edged, handled by one of the defendants, caught in the saw and was whirled against the plaintiff, doing the injury complained of. The evidence also tended to show that a similar accident had occurred a few days previously to defendantsâ knowledge. The cause of the injury, as claimed by defendants, was that the-rollers were not rightly placed; as claimed by plaintiff, it was the negligence of the defendant who was handling the plank. At the close of the evidence defendantsâ counsel moved for a nonsuit, on the grounds, substantially, that they owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, and that plaintiff was chargeable with carelessness in going into the mill. The motion was granted. Held, error; that at least the questions of negligence and contributory negligence should have been submitted to the-jury. The court stating the rule substantially as above, citing Swords v. Edgar (ante, p. 28).
R. A. Parmenter for the appellant.
E. F. Bullard for the respondents.
[MAJORITY â Folger, J.,]
Folger, J.,
reads for reversal and new trial.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.