Legal Opinion
Campo v. Scofield
New York Court of Appeals
Decided November 30, 1950PublishedCited by 223 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFuld, J.
Plaintiff, working on his son’s farm, was engaged in feeding onions into an ‘ ‘ onion topping ’ ’ machine, when his hands became caught in its revolving steel rollers and were badly injured. He brought suit against defendants, manufacturers of the machine, alleging that they had been negligent in failing to equip it with a guard or stopping device. The sufficiency of the complaint is challenged by motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice.
The topping machine, on wheels and attached to a tractor which supplied the power for its operation, consisted of four hard steel rollers about…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Devlin v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Rosebrock v. General Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Genesee County Patrons Fire Relief Ass'n v. L. Sonneborn Sons, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Statler v. George A. Ray Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1909
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by223 opinions
- Erling David Larsen v. General Motors Corporation, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1968
- Micallef v. Miehle Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Maddox v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Barrett v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
- Barbara F. Evans, Personal Representative of the Estate of Roy Evans, Deceased v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1966
218 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.