Laarson v. Cameron
149 A.D. 952
N.Y. App. Div.
1912
Check Treatment

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Jenks, P. J., Hirsehberg, Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred; Burr, J., dissented upon the ground (1) that a finding that other and different appliances than those furnished by defendant for shifting belts were in common and general use in connection with such machinery as was here employed, is against the weight of the evidence, and (3) upon the further ground that plaintiff’s intestate assumed the risk of the employment.