From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Gawrys v. Buffalo Bolt Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 8, 1950
276 A.D. 1035 (N.Y. App. Div. 1950)

Opinion

March 8, 1950.

Appeal from Workmen's Compensation Board.

Present — Foster, P.J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ.


Claimant, sixteen years of age, was employed as a feeder on a gimlet pointer machine in the employer's factory on August 19, 1946. While working on the machine to which he was assigned his right hand was caught between two gears of the machine as a result of which claimant suffered injuries necessitating the amputation of three fingers of his right hand. The award was made against the employer for double compensation pursuant to the provisions of section 14-a Work. Comp. of the Workmen's Compensation Law on the ground that at the time of the accident claimant was employed in violation of subdivision 11 of section 146 Lab. of the Labor Law and rule 922 of the Rules of the Board of Standards and Appeals. After reviewing the evidence the board found that claimant was employed in violation of section 146 Lab. of the Labor Law and rule 922 of the Rules of the Board of Standards and Appeals and found that at the time of his injury claimant was working on a machine which was improperly guarded. The evidence sustains that finding. Award unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs to be divided between the Workmen's Compensation Board and claimant and with printing disbursements to the board.


Summaries of

Matter of Gawrys v. Buffalo Bolt Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 8, 1950
276 A.D. 1035 (N.Y. App. Div. 1950)
Case details for

Matter of Gawrys v. Buffalo Bolt Company

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of BERNARD GAWRYS, Respondent, against BUFFALO…

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

Date published: Mar 8, 1950

Citations

276 A.D. 1035 (N.Y. App. Div. 1950)

Citing Cases

Campo v. Scofield

The legislature of this state, however, has not acted in the field, having chosen to impose a duty only upon…