Koester v. . Rochester Candy Works
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered ¡November 16, 1907, 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.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered ¡November 16, 1907, 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. An employer honestly believing a minor’s statements as to his age and being induced thereby to hire him, cannot be charged by that minor with negligence in hiring him. (L. 1897, ch. 415, § 70; Marino v. Lehmaier, 173 N. Y. 530; Danahar v. A. Mfg. Co., 126 App. Div.…
1Opinion of the Court
Cullen, Ch. J.
The action is brought, servant against master, to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence. The complaint charged the defendant, which conducted a candy factory, with employing the plaintiff, who at the time was an infant under the age of fourteen years, in the operation of dangerous machinery in violation of section 70 of the Labor Law (L. 1897, ch. 415), and that the machinery was not protected by proper safeguards as required by section 81 of that law. The answer put in issue the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and th.e other allegations…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Reed v. . McCordNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Marino v. . LehmaierNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Coulter v. . American Merchants' Un. Ex. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Thompson v. . BlanchardNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Cheever v. CongdonMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Amberg v. . KinleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Berdos v. Tremont & Suffolk MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Gangi v. . FradusNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Karpeles v. . HeineNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Stetz v. F. Mayer Boot & Shoe Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.