Van Sickel v. Ilsley — 82 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 537

Majority

p. 537

Ada G. Van Sickel, Respondent, v. Silas A. Ilsley and Stillman Ilsley, Appellants.

Headnote

Conflict of testimony — verdict of the jury conclusive.

In an action brought to recover damages resulting from personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defective machinery used by the plaintiff while in the defendant’s employment, the plaintiff testified that the machine which she was operating was one which was put in motion by her placing her foot on a treadle; that when she was injured, the machine started when her foot was not on the treadle, which could not have happened unless the machine was out of order. The defendants introduced testimony to show that the machine was in perfect condition at the time of the accident. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff of $3,800.

Held, that the conflict of testimony was such that the case was properly submitted to the jury, and

'That the verdict was not excessive.

Appeal by the defendants, Silas A. Ilsley and Stillman Ilsley, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of Kings county on the 27th day of March, 1893, upon the verdict of a jury in favor the plaintiff rendered at the Kings County Circuit, and from an order denying

p. 538

defendants’ motion for a new trial entered in said clerk’s office on tbe 2'iFtb day of Marcli, 1893.

The plaintiff’s fingers were crushed by a press at which she was working, and to recover damages resulting from the injury thus inflicted this action was brought against her employers.

The jury rendered a verdict in plaintiff’s favor for $3,300.

Charles G. Nadal and Thomas 8. Moore, for the appellants.

George W. JDease and Gharries J. Patterson, for the respondent.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial upon the minutes of the court.

The action was for the recovery of damages resulting from personal injuries to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was in the employment of the defendants, and her duty was to operate a machine or press for stamping and beading tin.

The ordinary method of stamping the tin was by the fall of the punch or press caused by placing the foot of the operator upon the treadle.

The plaintiff claims and so testified that she was injured by the fall of the press or punch when her foot was not upon the treadle, and so her theory and that of her counsel is that such a fall would not occur if the machine had been in order, and as it did so fall it follows that the machine was not in order.

On the part of the defendants, testimony was- introduced which tended to show that the machine was in perfect order and condition at the time of the accident and for some time thereafter. Such contradictory testimony rendered the case a proper one for the jury, and it was submitted by a charge to which there was no exception. We find no errors and cannot say that the verdict is excessive. The judgment and order denying a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

CulleN and Pratt, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order denying motion for new trial affirmed, with costs.