Case Name: THE CLARK THREAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. MARGARET BENNETT, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1895-11
Citations: 58 N.J.L. 404
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE CLARK THREAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. MARGARET BENNETT, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 404–405

Head Matter:
THE CLARK THREAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. MARGARET BENNETT, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
On error to the Supreme Court.
For the plaintiff in error, Richard V. Lindahury.
For the defendant in error, Samuel Kalisch.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The argument was confined to the assignments of error based on the refusal to nonsuit and the refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant below.
No error is discoverable in these refusals.
1. There was evidence to go to the jury in respect to the liability of the company for Margaret's injury.
2. As to the negligence of plaintiff which is alleged to have contributed to the injury, the claim is that it was established by inferences drawn from the construction of the machine and from the mode in which her hand was pulled in between the cylinders from below. The contention is that she could not have been so injured unless she had put her hand in a place of obvious danger.
But it was for the jury to draw inferences from the facts, and a peremptory instruction could not be given by the trial judge unless in a case where but a single inference could be drawn.
It was so improbable that she received her injury in the precise manner she described and so difficult to conceive how she was drawn in without her own negligence, that a new trial might well have been allowed on the ground that the jury's inference of no negligence on her part was against the weight of evidence. But as it was possible that her injury happened in a manner consistent with her description and without negligence on her part, an instruction for a verdict against her ought not to have been given, for a second or subsequent verdict on the same evidence in. her favor would doubtless not have been disturbed. Crue v. Caldwell, 23 Vroom 215.
The result is that the judgment must be affirmed.
For affirmance—The Chancellor, Garrison, Lippincott, Ludlow, Magie, Bogeet,- Brown, Krueger, Smith, TalmaN. 10.
For reversal—None.