Moore v. Charles T. Wills, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
32 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. 28 East 70th Stret Construction Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 2003)
- Kaczmarek v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (District Court, W.D. New York 1995)
- Eastern Airlines v. Joseph Guida & Sons Trucking Co. (District Court, E.D. New York 1987)
- Toole v. United States (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1977)
- Peter v. Public Constructors, Inc. (3d Cir. 1966)
- Waterway Terminals Co. v. P. S. Lord Mechanical Contractors (Or. 1965)
- Rosensweig v. State of New York (N.Y. 1959)
- Person v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co. (2d Cir. 1949)
- Gucciardi v. Chisholm (2d Cir. 1944)
- Gucciardi v. Chisholm (District Court, S.D. New York 1943)
- Davies v. Contel of New York, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Oregon Leopold Day Care Center Ass'n v. Di Marco Constructors Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- C. O. Falter, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Insurance (New York Supreme Court 1974)
- Rusin v. Jackson Heights Shopping Center, Inc. (N.Y. 1970)
- Troll v. Schoonmaker Bros. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1970)
- Foran v. Marsh & McLennan, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1968)
- De Luca v. Fehlhaber Corp. (Civil Court of the City of New York 1963)
- Davis v. Caristo Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
- Politi v. Irvmar Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1959)
- Mazzochi v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority (New York Supreme Court 1958)
- Blackwood v. Chemical Corn Exchange Bank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1957)
- Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co. (N.Y. 1950)
- Adler v. Long Island Railroad Company (N.Y. 1947)
- Adler v. Long Island Railroad Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1946)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The defendant Charles T. Wills, Inc., was the general contractor engaged in remodeling a building. The defendant J. Kresse Co., Inc., was a subcontractor .engaged in. concrete floor work therein. A plank fell to the street and injured the plaintiff, and for such injuries a recovery has been had against both of said defendants. The verdict against the subcontractor, J. Kresse Co., Inc., is founded upon testimony tending to establish that its employees negligently caused or permitted the plank to fall to the street. The verdict of the jury and the affirmance of the judgment by the Appellate Division conclusively established said defendant’s negligence, as the testimony presented raised a clear question of fact.
The verdict against the general contractor, Charles T. Wills, Inc., was based upon the ground that it had general supervision of the work and was negligent in not properly supervising the work as it progressed. We are of the opinion that there is no evidence which justified the submission of that question to the jury. It is not suggested that the plan was not safe and proper, or that the work was not being done in a lawful way. The work being done was not intrinsically dangerous or any more hazardous than the construction of any building on a busy street. No method of doing the work has been suggested which would make for greater safety. The negligence of the subcontractor occurred while it was acting independently of the general contractor, and the general contractor was not in any way connected with the negligent act.
As a general rule a general contractor is not responsible for the negligent acts of his subcontractor. (French v. Vix, 143 N. Y. 90; Hexamer v. Webb, 101 N. Y. 377.)
The plaintiff has failed to bring the general contractor *429 within any exception to the general rule. The fact that the general contractor retained some limited power of general supervision for the purpose of seeing that the work was being properly done by the subcontractor, according to the plans and specifications, did not make it liable for the independent negligent act of the subcontractor. (Upping ton v. City of New York, 165 N. Y. 222; Herman v. City of Buffalo, 214 N. Y. 316.)
The judgment against J. Kresse Co., Inc., should be affirmed, with costs, and the judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term against Charles T. Wills, Inc., should be reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.
Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.
Judgment accordingly.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.