Krooss v. Lehmaier

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Krooss v. Lehmaier

107 N.Y.S. 218

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 29, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 107 N.Y.S. 218 (Krooss v. Lehmaier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Krooss v. Lehmaier, 107 N.Y.S. 218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought by an employe to recover for injuries alleged to have been' sustained through the negligence of her employers, the defendants. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, based upon the verdict of a jury, the defendants appeal.

The plaintiff was injured on a machine used for pressing metal caps for bottles. Without considering the question raised involving the plaintiff’s contributory negligence and her assumption of risk, we think that a new trial should be had for the reason that there was insufficient proof of notice to the defendants of the alleged defective condition of the machine. The plaintiff’s statements on cross-examination not only contradicted her direct testimony, but they defined and limited its apparent meaning to such an extent that its effect was destroyed, and there remained no affirmative proof which would justify a finding that the defendants had notice of any defect.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought by an employe to recover for injuries alleged to have been' sustained through the negligence of her employers, the defendants. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, based upon the verdict of a jury, the defendants appeal.

The plaintiff was injured on a machine used for pressing metal caps for bottles. Without considering the question raised involving the plaintiff’s contributory negligence and her assumption of risk, we think that a new trial should be had for the reason that there was insufficient proof of notice to the defendants of the alleged defective condition of the machine. The plaintiff’s statements on cross-examination not only contradicted her direct testimony, but they defined and limited its apparent meaning to such an extent that its effect was destroyed, and there remained no affirmative proof which would justify a finding that the defendants had notice of any defect.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 N.Y.S. 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krooss-v-lehmaier-nyappterm-1907.