Ackert v. Delano

Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. As the record stands the verdict that plaintiff was not a farm laborer was against the weight of evidence and against the law on the facts presented. There were two causes of action, one under the provisions of sections 10 and 11 and section 3, subdivision 1, groups 2 and 18, of the Workmen’s Compensation Law; and one for common-law liability for negligence. The verdict was a general one, so that it is not possible to determine on which theory the verdict was rendered, or whether it was rendered on…