Case ID: ny_118/html/0664-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Follett, Ch. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peter Hartwig, Respondent, v. Bay State Shoe and Leather Company, Appellant.
    (Argued December 2, 1889;
    decided December 20, 1889.)
    Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order madepebruary 18,188 J, which affirmed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
    This action was brought to recover damages for injuries received by plaintiff while using one of defendant’s machines, which he claimed was defective.
    The following is the mem. of decision.
    
      “ The plaintiff was negligent in attempting to adjust the mold while the press was in motion, and also in putting the finger which was injured on the top of the mold instead of its side when attempting to adjust it. Each of these acts contributed to the injury, and the trial court erred in refusing the defendant’s motion for a non-suit.
    The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.”
    
      W. C. Beecher for appellant.
    
      Charles J. Patterson for respondent.
   Follett, Ch. J.,

reads for reversal.

All concur except Brown, L, not sitting; and Bradley and Haight, JJ., not voting.

Judgment reversed.