CompFox AI Summary
Maria Hirsch, the plaintiff, brought an action for personal injuries sustained on November 30, 1990, while operating a logo machine at her workplace, Andmore Sportswear Corporation. She sued Polymark Corporation, the machine's seller, alleging negligence for a missing flap guard, which led to her finger being severely injured and amputated. Polymark, in turn, filed a third-party claim against Andmore, accusing it of negligence in altering the machine's finger guard. A jury found both Polymark (15% liable) and Andmore (85% liable) negligent. Andmore subsequently moved to set aside the verdict and vacate the judgment, claiming the jury's findings were inconsistent due to the presentation of single theories of liability. The Court, however, denied Andmore's motions, finding a plausible interpretation of the jury's verdict that supported concurrent negligence.
Hirsch v. Polymark Corp. is a workers' compensation case decided in District Court, S.D. New York. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in District Court, S.D. New York.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Maria Hirsch, the plaintiff, brought an action for personal injuries sustained on November 30, 1990, while operating a logo machine at her workplace, Andmore Sportswear Corporation. She sued Polymark Corporation, the machine's seller, alleging negligence for a missing flap guard, which led to her finger being severely injured and amputated. Polymark, in turn, filed a third-party claim against Andmore, accusing it of negligence in altering the machine's finger guard. A jury found both Polymark (15% liable) and Andmore (85% liable) negligent. Andmore subsequently moved to set aside the verdict and vacate the judgment, claiming the jury's findings were inconsistent due to the presentation of single theories of liability. The Court, however, denied Andmore's motions, finding a plausible interpretation of the jury's verdict that supported concurrent negligence.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.