Case Name: MICHAEL GREEN, PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. THE BARNES MANUFACTURING COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1903-09-30
Citations: 69 N.J.L. 596
Docket Number: 
Parties: MICHAEL GREEN, PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. THE BARNES MANUFACTURING COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Judges: Before Gummere, Ci-iiee Justice and Justices Fort, Hendrickson and Pitney.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 596–597

Head Matter:
MICHAEL GREEN, PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. THE BARNES MANUFACTURING COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Argued February Term, 1903
Decided September 30, 1903.
Where, in-'an-action for injuries received by the flying of a piece of wood thrown by a circular saw, the proof was almost plenary that the servant had been warned of the.danger of the saw and forbidden to pass through the room where it was working, another way being expressly' provided, and the only evidence to the contrary was • the practically uncorroborated evidence ■ of the plaintiff, a verdict finding the plaintiff was „not warned was against the clear weight of evidence.
On rule to show cause.
Before Gummere, Ci-iiee Justice and Justices Fort, Hendrickson and Pitney.
For the rule, Joseph Anderson, Charles L. Blade and Charles L.. Corbin.
Contra, Lewis, Besson & Stevens.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff was injured by the Hying of a piece of wood thrown by a circular saw.
The proof seems to us to have been almost plenáry that the plaintiff in this case was warned of the danger of the circular saw and forbidden to pass through the room v?here it was working, because of such danger, another way being expressly provided for the plaintiff and others to do their work.
The 'jury have found that the plaintiff was not warned, accepting practically his own uncorroborated evidence against the whole range of the unimpeached testimony of the defendant. If the plaintiff was warned, and with full knowledge of danger went the way he did and was injured, he assumed the risk.
The verdict was against the clear weight of evidence. The verdict in this case was also grossly excessive.
The rule to show cause must be made absolute and a new trial granted.