Timmons v. American Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Timmons v. American Manufacturing Co.

163 A.D. 969, 148 N.Y.S. 1147

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

DecidedJune 15, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 163 A.D. 969 (Timmons v. American Manufacturing 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

Timmons v. American Manufacturing Co., 163 A.D. 969, 148 N.Y.S. 1147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff’s part in oiling the machine and in letting the oil be on the floor for a month, without having made any report of it, raised the question of assumption of risk and of a want of care in going through this aisle with the oil in plain view. His knowledge the day before of the loosened bolt in the guard at the pulley, without any report or complaint, also raised a [970]*970question of assumption of risk. The complaint being under the Employers’ Liability Act, although the proof was not, misled the learned court in its charge on the burden of proof. Though afterwards corrected, probably it did not quite clear up the question to the jury. The request as to the defendant’s knowledge of the loosened bolt should have been charged. The judgment and order are, therefore, reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Jenks, P-. J., Burr, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

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

Plaintiff’s part in oiling the machine and in letting the oil be on the floor for a month, without having made any report of it, raised the question of assumption of risk and of a want of care in going through this aisle with the oil in plain view. His knowledge the day before of the loosened bolt in the guard at the pulley, without any report or complaint, also raised a [970]*970question of assumption of risk. The complaint being under the Employers’ Liability Act, although the proof was not, misled the learned court in its charge on the burden of proof. Though afterwards corrected, probably it did not quite clear up the question to the jury. The request as to the defendant’s knowledge of the loosened bolt should have been charged. The judgment and order are, therefore, reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Jenks, P-. J., Burr, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.D. 969, 148 N.Y.S. 1147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timmons-v-american-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1914.