Santiago v. Brill Monfort Co.
| Decision Date | 09 June 1961 |
| Citation | 10 N.Y.2d 718,219 N.Y.S.2d 266,176 N.E.2d 835 |
| Parties | , 176 N.E.2d 835 Alcides SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. BRILL MONFORT CO., Respondent. Jose A. SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. BRILL MONFORT CO., Respondent. Julio T. AYALA, Appellant, v. BRILL MONFORT CO., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 11 A.D.2d 1041, 205 N.Y.S.2d 919.
Three separate actions were brought by three employees against their employer for injuries sustained in the course of their employment. The complaints alleged that the employees were injured as a result of the employer's wanton, intentional, unlawful and affirmative wrongful acts in removing certain safety guards from machines operated by the employees, and that such acts were in effect an assault on the employees by the employer, and that the injuries were not accidental within purview of the Workmen's Compensation Law, Consol.Laws, c. 67, § 1 et seq.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County, Louis L. Friedman, J., 23 Misc.2d 309, 201 N.Y.S.2d 167, rendered orders denying the motions of the employer to dismiss the amended complaints, on ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject of the actions and that the complaints did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the employer appealed.
The Appellate Division, 11 A.D.2d 1041, 205 N.Y.S.2d 919, reversed the orders, dismissed the amended complaints, and held that the complaints pleaded causes of action for injuries suffered by workmen as a result of industrial accidents in a covered employment, for which the Workmen's Compensation Law accorded to the employer immunity from an action for damages, where there was no allegation that the safety guards were removed with a deliberate intent to injure the employees, but rather it was alleged that the removal was for the sole purpose of increasing production for greater increment and profits.
The employees appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Markhoff, Gottlieb & Harkins, New York City (Abraham Markhoff and Stephen A. Wise, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.
In each action:
Judgment affirmed, without costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. VIP Development Co.
...103 N.J.Super. 522, 248 A.2d 129; Sanford v. Presto Mfg. Co. (App.1979), 92 N.M. 746, 594 P.2d 1202; Santiago v. Brill Monfort Co. (1961), 10 N.Y.2d 718, 219 N.Y.S.2d 266, 176 N.E.2d 835; Schlenk v. Aerial Contractors, Inc. (N.D.1978), 268 N.W.2d 466; Roberts v. Barclay (Okla.1962), 369 P.2......
-
Rosales v. Verson Allsteel Press Co.
...however, does not aid plaintiff. In Santiago v. Brill Monfort Co. (1960), 11 A.D.2d 1041, 205 N.Y.S.2d 919, Affirmed 10 N.Y.2d 718, 219 N.Y.S.2d 266, 176 N.E.2d 835, plaintiffs brought suits against their employer alleging that they were injured as a result of their employer's wanton, inten......
-
Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin
...Ill.App.3d 787, 354 N.E.2d 553 (1976); McAdams v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., Inc., 395 So.2d 411 (La.App.1981); Santiago v. Brill Monfort Co., 10 N.Y.2d 718, 176 N.E.2d 835 (1961), Duk Hwan Chung v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 276 Or. 809, 556 P.2d 683 (1976); Foster v. Allsop Automatic, Inc., 86 Wash.......
-
Orzechowski v. Warner-Lambert Co., WARNER-LAMBERT
...v. Swingly, 42 A.D.2d 1035, 348 N.Y.S.2d 266; Santiago v. Brill Monfort Co., 11 A.D.2d 1041, 205 N.Y.S.2d 919, affd. 10 N.Y.2d 718, 219 N.Y.S.2d 266, 176 N.E.2d 835; Artonio v. Hirsch, 3 A.D.2d 939, 163 N.Y.S.2d 439). Assuming, arguendo, however, that the plaintiffs had been able to allege ......