Case Name: WEMETTE v. AMERICAN CARBIDE CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-03-06
Citations: 136 N.Y.S. 418
Docket Number: 
Parties: WEMETTE v. AMERICAN CARBIDE CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 136
Pages: 418–423

Head Matter:
(150 App. Div. 899.)
WEMETTE v. AMERICAN CARBIDE CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
March 6, 1912.)
1. Master and Servant (§ 278*)—Injuries to Servant—Negligence—Evidence—Verdict.
In an action for injuries to a workman in charge of a drop press by the alleged involuntary dropping of the hammer, evidence held insufficient to warrant a finding that defendant was negligent.
[Ed.- Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent Dig. §§ ' 954-972, 977; Dec. Dig. § 278.*]
2. Master and Servant (§§ 288, 289*)—Injuries to Servant—Assumed Risk —Contributory Negligence—Question for Jury.
In an action for injuries to a servant by the alleged involuntary operation of a drop press, evidence held to require the submission of the issues of contributory negligence and assumed risk to the jury.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent Dig. §§ 1005, 1068-1088, 1089-1132; Dec. Dig. §§ 288, 289.*]
Betts, J., dissenting.
•For other eases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
Appeal from Trial Term, Clinton County.
Action by Fred Wemette against the American Carbide Company. From a judgment entered on a decision of the court setting aside the verdict of the jury as to two questions and granting a nonsuit or .dismissal of the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Judgment vacated and order modified so as to grant new trial, and, as so modified, affirmed.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, HOUGHTON, and BETTS, JJ.
Weeds, Conway & Cotter, for appellant.
Charles J. Vert, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Judgment vacated and order modified by striking therefrom the provision dismissing the complaint and inserting in lieu thereof a provision granting a new trial, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event of the action.
This decision is made upon the ground that the finding of the jury that the defendant was guilty of negligence is against the weight of evidence; the court holding that the questions as to the plaintiff's assumption of risk and contributory negligence were proper questions for the determination of the jury. All concur, KELLOGG, J'., in result, except—