From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fiore v. General Railway Signal Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 11, 1936
249 App. Div. 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

Opinion

November 11, 1936.

Present — Sears, P.J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.


Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: As to assumption of risk, see Gombert v. McKay ( 201 N.Y. 27) and Fitzwater v. Warren (206 id. 355); as to contributory negligence, see Marino v. Lehmaier ( 173 N.Y. 530) and Maleeny v. Standard Shipbuilding Corp. (237 id. 250). The case of Karpeles v. Heine ( 227 N.Y. 74) is not of assistance to the appellant for the reason that in that case there was an absolute prohibition in the statute against the employment of the plaintiff, who was under sixteen years of age, thus excluding any possibility of contributory negligence. All concur. (The order denies motion to strike out affirmative defenses in the answer.)


Summaries of

Fiore v. General Railway Signal Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 11, 1936
249 App. Div. 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)
Case details for

Fiore v. General Railway Signal Company

Case Details

Full title:ROSINA FIORE and JOHN FIORE, as Administrators, etc., of THOMAS FIORE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 11, 1936

Citations

249 App. Div. 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)