McManus v. St. Regis Paper Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McManus v. St. Regis Paper Co.

91 N.Y.S. 1102

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 91 N.Y.S. 1102 (McManus v. St. Regis Paper 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

McManus v. St. Regis Paper Co., 91 N.Y.S. 1102 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event, upon questions of law only; the facts having been examined and no error found therein. Held, that the trial court erred in refusing to charge that, if the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that the guard was off the machine, he assumed the risk of the accident which befell him and cannot recover; also held, that it was error to refuse to charge that the failure of the superintendent of the mill to replace the guard was the negligence of a competent fellow servant of the plaintiff, for which the defendant cannot be charged with negligence, if they so find, for the reason that the replacing of it is a mere detail of the work; also held that, the action having been tried as one to recover upon a common-law liability, the rules governing such actions must be held to apply upon this appeal.

SPRING, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event, upon questions of law only; the facts having been examined and no error found therein. Held, that the trial court erred in refusing to charge that, if the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that the guard was off the machine, he assumed the risk of the accident which befell him and cannot recover; also held, that it was error to refuse to charge that the failure of the superintendent of the mill to replace the guard was the negligence of a competent fellow servant of the plaintiff, for which the defendant cannot be charged with negligence, if they so find, for the reason that the replacing of it is a mere detail of the work; also held that, the action having been tried as one to recover upon a common-law liability, the rules governing such actions must be held to apply upon this appeal.

SPRING, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.Y.S. 1102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmanus-v-st-regis-paper-co-nyappdiv-1904.