Legal Opinion

Fiore v. General Railway Signal Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 11, 1936PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: As to assumption of risk, see Gombert v. Mc Kay (201 N. Y. 27) and Fitzwater v. Warren (206id. 355); as to contributory negligence, see Marino v. Lehmaier (173 N. Y. 530) and Maleeny v. Standard Shipbuilding Corp. (237 id. 250). The case of Karpeles v. Heine (227 N. Y. 74) is not of assistance to the appellant for the reason that in that ease there was an absolute prohibition in the statute against the employment of the plaintiff, who was under sixteen years of age, thus excluding any possibility of contributory negligence.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Marino v. . LehmaierNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  2. Karpeles v. . HeineNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
  3. Gombert v. . McKayNew York Court of Appeals · 1911

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Griebsch v. B. T. Babbitt, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API