Oszkoscil v. Eagle Pencil Co.

Superior Court of New York

Oszkoscil v. Eagle Pencil Co.

6 N.Y.S. 501, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 649

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedJune 28, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 N.Y.S. 501 (Oszkoscil v. Eagle Pencil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oszkoscil v. Eagle Pencil Co., 6 N.Y.S. 501, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 649 (superctny 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Freedman, J.

No evidence was adduced at the trial of any defect of, want of repair or secret danger in, the machinery complained of. The machinery appeared to have been in every way suitable and adequate for the purposes for which it was used. Whatever danger there was, arose from coming into contact with some one of the parts whils in motion. But all the parts of the machinery, and their movements, were fully exposed to view. Under these circumstances, and the plaintiff having been engaged upon said machinery for some time, a specific instruction by the employer to the plaintiff not to permit her hand to be caught between the moving machinery was unnecessary, and the absence of such an instruction constitutes no ground of liability. An employe, in accepting or continuing in service with a knowledge of the character and position of the machinery, the dangers of which are apparent, and from which he may be liable to receive injury, assumes the risks incident to the employment, and the fact that he is a minor does not change the rule. Upon the principle laid down and enforced in Hickey v. Taaffe, 105 N. Y. 36, 12 N. E. Rep. 286, the complaint was properly dismissed. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Freedman, J.

No evidence was adduced at the trial of any defect of, want of repair or secret danger in, the machinery complained of. The machinery appeared to have been in every way suitable and adequate for the purposes for which it was used. Whatever danger there was, arose from coming into contact with some one of the parts whils in motion. But all the parts of the machinery, and their movements, were fully exposed to view. Under these circumstances, and the plaintiff having been engaged upon said machinery for some time, a specific instruction by the employer to the plaintiff not to permit her hand to be caught between the moving machinery was unnecessary, and the absence of such an instruction constitutes no ground of liability. An employe, in accepting or continuing in service with a knowledge of the character and position of the machinery, the dangers of which are apparent, and from which he may be liable to receive injury, assumes the risks incident to the employment, and the fact that he is a minor does not change the rule. Upon the principle laid down and enforced in Hickey v. Taaffe, 105 N. Y. 36, 12 N. E. Rep. 286, the complaint was properly dismissed. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 N.Y.S. 501, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oszkoscil-v-eagle-pencil-co-superctny-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack