7 N.Y.S. 764, Oehme v. Cook
|Citation:||7 N.Y.S. 764|
|Opinion Judge:||Van Hoesen, J.|
|Party Name:||Oehme v. Cook et al|
|Attorney:||August P. Wagener and Lexow & Leo, (Leopold Leo, of counsel,) for appellant. Edward M. Burghard and Lewis Sanders, for respondents.|
|Judge Panel:||Argued before Larremore, C. J., and Van Hoesen, J.|
|Case Date:||December 02, 1889|
Appeal from trial term.
Action by William Oehme against Valentine Cook and another for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff from the alleged negligence of defendants while employed in their iron foundry. A crane in the foundry consists of a vertical beam, about 16 or 18 feet high, that reaches nearly to the ceiling, and revolves on a pivot. From the top of this beam, two horizontal pieces of timber, about 20 feet long, parallel, on the same level, extending in the same direction from the vertical beam, and reaching out the same distance from it, project. A carriage, the wheels of which rest on the two horizontal timbers, moves back and forth upon them. A traveling bar is run directly above the space between the horizontal timbers. The one end of the traveling bar is fastened to the carriage, and, as the carriage is moved back and forth, the traveling bar, to keep its horizontal position, moves on a cog-wheel between the horizontal timbers nearest the vertical beam. On the inner side of either of the horizontal timbers a bar of iron was screwed, on which the end of the traveling bar would drop, in case it was forced outward beyond a certain point. This bar, which the witness called the "preserver," plaintiff attempted to prove, was absent at the time of the accident. From a judgment entered on a nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
The evidence showed that the traveling bar fell from the crane and struck the plaintiff, but that it would not have fallen if a piece
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP