Reardon v. New York Consolidated Card Co.
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal by defendant from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. on the points decided, argued :—I. The plaintiff failed to show, that she did not have the means of discovering the alleged defect, and equal means of knowledge with the defendant in respect thereto.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. on the points decided, argued :—I. The plaintiff failed to show, that she did not have the means of discovering the alleged defect, and equal means of knowledge with the defendant in respect thereto. Servant, in order to recover must establish three propositions : 1. That appliance was defective; 2. That master had notice or knowledge, or ought to have had; 3. That servant did not know, and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Freedman, J.
The action is for a personal injury. The plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges : (1) That the plaintiff was at the time of the injury, in the employ of the defendant as an operator on a card cutting machine; (2) that such machine was out of order at the time, as was well known to the defendant, and was in a condition dangerous to be used ; (3) that without negligence on her part and without knowledge that the machine was defective, she was injured by a knife connected with the machine; and (4) that such injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Coombs v. New Bedford Cordage Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Gibson v. . Erie Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Hayden v. Smithville Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1861
- Laning v. . N.Y.C.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Wright v. . New York Central Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. SandfordIndiana Supreme Court · 1889