Dailey v. . Stoll
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 24, 1912, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The nature of the action and the facts, as far as material, are stated in the opinion. The action was improperly tried as one within the provisions of the Employers’ Liability Act for the reason that notice was not served as required by said act.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 24, 1912, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The nature of the action and the facts, as far as material, are stated in the opinion. The action was improperly tried as one within the provisions of the Employers’ Liability Act for the reason that notice was not served as required by said act. (L. 1909, ch. 36, § 201.) The fastening of the chain to the bolt, whether done by a superintendent or a fellow-servant of the plaintiff, was a detail of…
1Opinion of the CourtCardozo, J.
The plaintiff was employed 'by the defendant as a machinist’s helper. He hurt his hand while doing his work, and asks damages for the injury. The defendant was assembling in a factory the parts of a large press. There were four bolts or rods running down through the press, each of them about fifteen feet long, and weighing about 1,200 pounds. Three of them were safely adjusted. In the adjustment of the last one the accident occurred. A large nut weighing forty pounds had to be placed on the bolt, which for this purpose was raised about a foot or six inches from the ground. It was raised…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Dougherty v. . MillikenNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Butler v. . TownsendNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Hussey v. . CogerNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Hogan v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- McCampbell v. Cunard Steamship Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1895
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Claim of Twonko v. Rome Brass & Copper Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Yaconi v. Brady & Gioe, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Vang Construction Co. v. MarcocciaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1928
- Bicklemeyer v. Lackawanna Steel Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
- Leziac v. Buckeye Coal Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Fayette County1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.