Griebsch v. B. T. Babbitt, Inc.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSchenck, J.
Plaintiff moves for an order striking from the answer several of the defenses set forth by the defendant under rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that it appears on the face of the defenses that they are insufficient in law.
The complaint sets forth two causes of action. First, it is alleged that the defendant breached a common-law duty in failing to provide for the plaintiff, an employee, a safe place for the performance of work. As a result of this failure by the defendant, the plaintiff alleges that he contracted silicosis because of the large quantities of dust that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Fiore v. General Railway Signal Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
3Cited by3 opinions
- Long v. Murnane Associates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Constant Revelant v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1937
- Teller v. Prospect Heights HospitalNew York Supreme Court · 1938