Collelli v. . Turner

109 N.E. 83, 215 N.Y. 675, 1915 N.Y. LEXIS 1105
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 1, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 109 N.E. 83 (Collelli v. . Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Collelli v. . Turner, 109 N.E. 83, 215 N.Y. 675, 1915 N.Y. LEXIS 1105 (N.Y. 1915).

Opinion

Hiscock, J.

This action was brought by the appellant to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him while in the employ of defendants, and he seeks a recovery under common-law principles. The injuries sustained by plaintiff were the result of an accident to his hand while he was engaged in operating a press used for stamping skins. In the proper operation of this machine, as the result of pressing a treadle, the bed of the machine would rise against a die and make the desired impression upon the skin and then fall back.

It was the claim of the plaintiff that through the defective condition of the machine the bed at times would thus rise without any pressure on the treadle and that this was what occurred on the occasion of the accident when he was injured.

I think it is clear that the plaintiff knew enough about the alleged defect of this machine and about the possibility of such an accident as occurred so that he must be deemed to have assumed as matter of law the risks incident to the operation of the machine, unless the provisions of the Employers’ Liability Act, making the question of assumption of risks by an employee under such circumstances one of fact, apply to an action brought under common-law principles.

In my opinion this question has been decided by this court adversely to the contention of the plaintiff. (O'Neil v. Karr, 110 App. Div. 571; 115 App. Div. 881; affirmed, 190 N. Y. 509; Clark v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 191 N. Y. 416; Arnold v. National Starch Co., 194 N. Y. 42; Jackson v. Greene, 201 N. Y. 76. See, also, *677 Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492; Southern Railway Co. v. Crockett, 234 U. S. 725.)

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Oardozo and Seabury, JJ., concur; Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., absent. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hefele v. City of New York
25 A.D.2d 142 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
Skidmore v. Rosenblatt
258 A.D. 919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1939)
Yaconi v. Brady & Gioe, Inc.
158 N.E. 876 (New York Court of Appeals, 1927)
Dougherty v. Pratt Institute
155 N.E. 67 (New York Court of Appeals, 1926)
Donnelly v. Staten Island Shipbuilding Co.
206 A.D. 765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1923)
Nicholson v. . Greeley Square Hotel Co.
125 N.E. 541 (New York Court of Appeals, 1919)
Larson v. . Nassau Electric R.R. Co.
119 N.E. 92 (New York Court of Appeals, 1918)
Hall v. . New York Telephone Co.
115 N.E. 704 (New York Court of Appeals, 1917)
Horan v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
171 A.D. 180 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1916)
Wiley v. . Solvay Process Co.
109 N.E. 606 (New York Court of Appeals, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 N.E. 83, 215 N.Y. 675, 1915 N.Y. LEXIS 1105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collelli-v-turner-ny-1915.