Case ID: ad_160/html/0893-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Thomas J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Kimmerle, Respondent, v. The Carey Printing Company, Appellant.
    
      Master and servant — negligence — guards on machine.
    
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 84th day of June, 1912, in favor of the plaintiff, and from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 5th day of August, 1913, denying its motion for a new trial.
   Thomas J.:

The plaintiff slipped and his arm passed within the frame of a printing press, where it was injured by an actuating shoe which was unguarded and which extended to and in some part slightly beyond the frame of the press. Thirteen of seventeen presses then operated by the defendant had guards over the shoe, which, if used upon the machine in question, would have prevented the injury. The absence of the guard was a proximate cause of the injury, and it is immaterial that the plaintiff was not in proximity to the machine for the special purpose of operating it, or that the shoe was practically within the frame. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Welch v. Waterbary Co. (206 N. Y. 522); Martin v. Walker & Williams Mfg. Co. (198 id. 324); McEwen v. Borden's Condensed Milk Co. (154 App. Div. 185), and Basel v. Ansonia Clock Co. (159 id. 912). Present—Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Rich and Stapleton, JJ. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.