Case Name: Rosina Fiore and John Fiore, as Administrators, etc., of Thomas Fiore, Appellants, v. General Railway Signal Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1936-11-11
Citations: 249 A.D. 708
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rosina Fiore and John Fiore, as Administrators, etc., of Thomas Fiore, Appellants, v. General Railway Signal Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 249
Pages: 708–708

Head Matter:
Rosina Fiore and John Fiore, as Administrators, etc., of Thomas Fiore, Appellants, v. General Railway Signal Company, Respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: As to assumption of risk, see Gombert v. Mc Kay (201 N. Y. 27) and Fitzwater v. Warren (206id. 355); as to contributory negligence, see Marino v. Lehmaier (173 N. Y. 530) and Maleeny v. Standard Shipbuilding Corp. (237 id. 250). The case of Karpeles v. Heine (227 N. Y. 74) is not of assistance to the appellant for the reason that in that ease there was an absolute prohibition in the statute against the employment of the plaintiff, who was under sixteen years of age, thus excluding any possibility of contributory negligence. All concur. (The order denies motion to strike out affirmative defenses in the answer.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Bdgcomb, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.