Haynes v. Cooke & Cobb Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haynes v. Cooke & Cobb Co.

156 N.Y.S. 1125

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 10, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 156 N.Y.S. 1125 (Haynes v. Cooke & Cobb Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haynes v. Cooke & Cobb Co., 156 N.Y.S. 1125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Action by Mary Haynes,- an infant, by Harry Haynes, her guardian ad litem, against the Cooke & Cobb Company. No opinion. In face of the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses, and the evidence of common usage to guard and [1126]*1126Inclose such vertical shafting for a height of eight feet, the court cannot say, as against the jury’s verdict, that this shafting was properly guarded within the statute. Plaintiff’s contributory fault having been properly left to the jury, their verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of evidence. In view of plaintiff’s severe sufferings, and her serious and lasting injuries, with permanent disfigurement, we are not disposed to reduce the verdict of $20,000. The judgment and order are therefore unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Action by Mary Haynes,- an infant, by Harry Haynes, her guardian ad litem, against the Cooke & Cobb Company. No opinion. In face of the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses, and the evidence of common usage to guard and [1126]*1126Inclose such vertical shafting for a height of eight feet, the court cannot say, as against the jury’s verdict, that this shafting was properly guarded within the statute. Plaintiff’s contributory fault having been properly left to the jury, their verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of evidence. In view of plaintiff’s severe sufferings, and her serious and lasting injuries, with permanent disfigurement, we are not disposed to reduce the verdict of $20,000. The judgment and order are therefore unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 N.Y.S. 1125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-cooke-cobb-co-nyappdiv-1915.