Reports of Cases Decided in the Court of Appeals of the State of New York (Volume 114) (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1889. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... bottom of each bin is an orifice about two feet square, through which the sugarfalls into a packer. It is the dutv of the shovelers, . iMionir other things, when the dis- charging orifice of a bin becomes clogged, to open it by running a pole down through and loosening the sugar. Plaintiff had been en- gaged in this work, and was ac- quainted with the construction of the bins and the method of dis- charging sugar. The orifice of a bin became clogged and plaintiff entered with a co-employe to open it. The pole not being long enough to effect the purpose, they dug down into the sugar far enough to reach the orifice with the pole. On opening it a sudden and unusual subsidence of the sugar occurred and plaintiff was drawn down and surrounded by sugar; his co-em- ploves threw a rope around his body and' pulled him out, whereby he received the injuries complained of. It was clearly proved that the bins had long been in use, and no witness was called to show that they were defectively constructed, out of repair, or that they might have been improved. The only evidence to show defendants' knowledge of the danger was that of a former employe who testified that it was necessary in working to go on to the sugar, and that it was liable to run iii upon a person thus employed; that it happened twice to him, once the foreman being present. The questions of defendants' negligence and plaint- iff's contributory negligence were submitted to the jurv, who found for the defendants, lIi'ltl.no error for which plaintiff could complain. Bohn v. Havemeyer. 296 2. It seems the evidence was insuffi- cient to justify the submission of the question of defendants' neg- ligence to the jury. la. 3. Plaintiff, a switchman employed in defendant's yard at E., wliile engaged in coupling car...

R824

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles8240
Mobicred@R77pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1889. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... bottom of each bin is an orifice about two feet square, through which the sugarfalls into a packer. It is the dutv of the shovelers, . iMionir other things, when the dis- charging orifice of a bin becomes clogged, to open it by running a pole down through and loosening the sugar. Plaintiff had been en- gaged in this work, and was ac- quainted with the construction of the bins and the method of dis- charging sugar. The orifice of a bin became clogged and plaintiff entered with a co-employe to open it. The pole not being long enough to effect the purpose, they dug down into the sugar far enough to reach the orifice with the pole. On opening it a sudden and unusual subsidence of the sugar occurred and plaintiff was drawn down and surrounded by sugar; his co-em- ploves threw a rope around his body and' pulled him out, whereby he received the injuries complained of. It was clearly proved that the bins had long been in use, and no witness was called to show that they were defectively constructed, out of repair, or that they might have been improved. The only evidence to show defendants' knowledge of the danger was that of a former employe who testified that it was necessary in working to go on to the sugar, and that it was liable to run iii upon a person thus employed; that it happened twice to him, once the foreman being present. The questions of defendants' negligence and plaint- iff's contributory negligence were submitted to the jurv, who found for the defendants, lIi'ltl.no error for which plaintiff could complain. Bohn v. Havemeyer. 296 2. It seems the evidence was insuffi- cient to justify the submission of the question of defendants' neg- ligence to the jury. la. 3. Plaintiff, a switchman employed in defendant's yard at E., wliile engaged in coupling car...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

General Books LLC

Country of origin

United States

Release date

2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 16mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

296

ISBN-13

978-1-154-05868-0

Barcode

9781154058680

Categories

LSN

1-154-05868-9



Trending On Loot