Thayer v. . Utica Knitting Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgmeüfc of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 23, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. It was physically impossible for the accident to have happened as the plaintiff says it happened.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgmeüfc of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 23, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. It was physically impossible for the accident to have happened as the plaintiff says it happened. (Matter of Harriot, 145 N. Y. 540; Dolfni v. E. R. R. Co., 178 N. Y. 1; Hudson v. R., W. & O. R. R. Co., 145 N. Y. 408; Swart v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 81 App.…
1Opinion of the CourtHaight, J.
This action was brought to recover damages for a personal injury which occurred on the 24th day of April, 1902. The defendant was engaged in the manufacture of knit goods, and the plaintiff was one of its employees engaged in operating a machine known as a hydro extractor, but more commonly called a whizzer, used for drying knit goods. The machine consisted of a perforated metal basket forty inches in diameter, attached to a vertical shaft, which was connected by pulleys with the main shafting of the mill, by which it could be made to revolve at the rate of eight hundred revolutions a minute.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Taylor v. ThomasNew York Supreme Court · 1907
- Thayer v. Utica Knitting Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907