Legal Opinion
Schmidt v. Printing Business of Bruen
New York Supreme Court
Decided October 15, 1907PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtCrane, J.
It appears in this case that the certificate required by section 70 of the Labor Law was obtained from the board of health but was not filed with the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff insisted that, under the case of Marino v. Lehmaier, 173 N. Y. 530, the failure to file this procured certificate constitutes • presumptive negligence, no matter how the plaintiff, a boy between fourteen and sixteen, got hurt. I do not so read that case. The failure to comply with the provisions of the Labor Law must have had something to do with the accident to be some evidence of negligence; that is, the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Marino v. . LehmaierNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- People v. . WernerNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- City of New York v. Chelsea Jute MillsCity of New York Municipal Court · 1904
- Lowry v. Anderson Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- Kenyon v. Wm. P. Sanford Manufacturing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
3Cited by2 opinions
- Buffum v. F. W. Woolworth Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1925
- McBride v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927