Cox v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. — 236 N.Y. 540

Majority

p. 540

Jerome F. Cox, an Infant, by Martin B. Cox, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. Robins Dry Dock and Repair Company, Respondent.

Headnote

Negligence — master and servant — assumption of risk of employment — when action to recover for personal injuries properly dismissed.

Cox v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co., 202 App. Div. 818 , affirmed.

(Submitted April 24, 1923;

decided May 8, 1923.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 11, 1922, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant, his employer. Plaintiff was at work in the floating dry dock of the defendant, and his principal duties were to “ pass ” heated rivets from the “ heater boy ” to the “ holder' on,” that is, frqm the person who heated the rivets red hot in a small forge, to the person who placed them through the rivet holes in the plates of the ship, and held them while, the riveter riveted them fast. A part of his duties

p. 541

was to procure coal for the heater. While doing this he was struck by a flying piece of metal occasioning the loss of his left eye. The complaint was dismissed on the grounds that the injury arose from a risk of the employment which plaintiff had assumed and that there was no failure to furnish a safe place to work or safe appliances.

Jay S. Jones, Edward J. Fanning and Ralph, G. Barclay for appellant.

Thomas J. Brennan and A. G. Maul for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ. Absent: Cardozo, J.