Hyperlawhypertext legal database Luber v. Conners 136 N.Y.S. 351

← Cases

Luber v. Conners

136 N.Y.S. 351 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1912-07-09 English

Decision Majority — PER CURIAM. · Dissent — KRUSE, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 351
LUBER v. CONNERS.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
July 9, 1912.)

Headnote

Appeal from Trial Term, Erie County.
Action by Martin Luber, an infant, by Paul Luber, his guardian ad litem, against William J. Conners. From a judgment granting defendant’s motion for nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J„ and SPRING, KRUSE, ROBSON, and FOOTE, JJ.
Henry W. Killeen, of Buffalo, for appellant.
George P. Keating, of Buffalo, for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All conctir, except KRUSE, J., who dissents in a memorandum.

(dissenting). ' The evidence tends to show that warning of the starting of the press was given, but that the plaintiff did not hear it. The bell .system had-been installed, but was out of repair

Dissent

p. 352
and not usable, and had been so for about a month. I think the plaintiff was unnecessarily exposed to danger in the method in which the work was being carried on, both as regards the method of giving warning without the aid of the bell and in requiring him to feed the paper between the rollers without tapering it.