Case ID: ny_229/html/0554-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kingsley R. Farnum, by Alonzo Coons, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. Garner Print Works and Bleachery, Respondent.
    
      Negligence—master and servant — injury to servant of a nature to destroy procreative ability but not to impair earning capacity — sole remedy under Workmen’s Compensation Law.
    
    
      Farnum v. Garner Print Works & Bleachery, 184 App. Div. 911, affirmed.
    (Argued April 29, 1920;
    decided June 1, 1920.)
    Appeal from a judgment, entered July 21, 1918, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and directing a dismissal of the complaint in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant, his employer. Defendant operated a bleachery plant. Plaintiff, a young man nineteen years of age, was employed as helper on a machine known as a starch mangle. While thus employed he was caught in the machine and so injured that, according to his physician’s testimony, he will be permanently unable to have sexual intercourse or to beget children. The Appellate Division dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff’s sole remedy was under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Plaintiff contended that the schedules under section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law do not provide a remedy for an injury of the nature suffered by him and that, therefore, his common-law right of action remained.
    
      John E. Mack for appellant.
    
      Thomas F. Curran and James B. Henry for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

■ Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Collin, Hogan, Pound, McLaughlin, Andrews and Elkus, JJ.