Case ID: ny-st-rep_58/html/0731-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dykman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ada G. Van Sickel, Resp’t, v. Silas A. Ilsley et al., App’lts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February, 1894.)
    
    Appeal—Conflicting evidence.
    When there is a conflict of evidence upon a material issue, the case is properly submitted to the jury.
    Appeal by the defendants, Silas A. Ilsley and Stillman Ilsley, from a judgment of the supreme court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of Kings county on the 27th day of March, 1893, upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff rendered at the Kings county circuit, and from an order denying defendants’" motion for a new trial entered in said clerk’s office on the 27th day of March, 1893.
    The plaintiff’s fingers were crushed by a press at which she was working, and to recover damages resulting from the injury thus inflicted this action was brought against her employers.
    The jury rendered a verdict in plaintiff’s favor for $3,300.
    
      Charles G. Nadal and Thomas S. Moore, for app’lts; George Wl JDease and Charles J. Patterson, for resp’t.
   Dykman, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an denying a motion for a new trial upon the minutes of the court

The action was for the recovery of damages resulting from personal injuries to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was in the employment of the defendants, and her duty was to operate a machine or press for stamping and beading tin.

The ordinary method for stamping the tin was by the fall of the punch or press caused by placing the foot of the operator upon the treadle.

The plaintiff claims and so testified that she was injured by the fall of the press or punch when her foot was not upon the treadle, and so her theory and that of her counsel is that such a fall would not occur if the machine had been in order, and as it did so fall it follows that the machine was not in order.

On the part of the defendants, testimony was introduced which tended to show that the machine was in perfect order and condition at the time of the accident and for some time thereafter. Such contradictory testimony rendered t]ie case a proper one for the jury, and it was submitted by a charge to which there was no exception. We find no errors and cannot say that the verdict is excessive. The judgment and order denying a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

Cullen and Pratt, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order denying motion for new trial affirmed, with costs,