119 N.Y. 188, Dobbins v. Brown
|Citation:||119 N.Y. 188|
|Party Name:||ANNA M. DOBBINS, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. WALSTON H. BROWN et al., Appellants.|
|Case Date:||January 28, 1890|
|Court:||New York Court of Appeals|
Argued January 14, 1890.
E. T. Lovatt for appellants. There was no negligence shown on the part of the defendants. ( Stringham v. Hilton, 111 N.Y. 188; Burke v. Witherbee, 98 id. 562; March v. Chickering, 101 id. 401; Probst v. Delamater, 100 id. 272; Hickey v. Taaffe, 105 id. 26; Devlin v. Smith, 89 id. 470; Fuller v. Jewett, 80 id. 46; Painton v. N. C. R. R. Co., 83 id. 7; Ellis v. N.Y. L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 95 id. 546; Jones v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 22 Hun, 286; Sheehan v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 91 N.Y. 332;
Ford v. Lyons, 41 Hun, 515; Warner v. E. R. Co., 39 N.Y. 468; Coppins v. N.Y. C. & H R. R. R. Co., 18 W. D. 416; Salters v. D. & H. C. Co., 3 Hun, 338; Bohn v. Havemeyer, 114 N.Y. 296, 297; Buckley v. G. P., etc., Co., 113 id. 540; Slater v. Jewett, 85 id. 61; Clark v. Baines, 37 id. 389.)There was no proof of absence of contributory negligence on the part of deceased. ( Cahill v. Hilton, 106 N.Y. 512; Cordell v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 75 id. 330; Hale v. Smith, 78 id. 480; Warner v. N.Y. & C. R. R. Co., 44 id. 466; Hart v. H. R. B. Co., 84 id. 57; Shaw v. Sheldon, 103 id. 668.) Where a servant enters upon an employment, from its nature necessarily hazardous, he assumes the usual risks and perils of the service, and also those which are known to him, or which are apparent to ordinary observation. ( Gibson v. E. R. Co., 63 N.Y. 449; DeForest v. Jewett, 88 id. 264; Owen v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 1 Lans. 108; Shaw v. Sheldon, 103 N.Y. 667; McEnany v. Kyle, 8 N.Y. S. R. 358; Loray v. Hall, Id . 799; Monaghan v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 9 id. 674; Goodrich v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 3 id. 774; Hickey v. Taaffe, 105 N.Y. 26; Kelly v. C. G. Co., 17 Wkly. Dig. 408; Appel v. B., N.Y. & P. Co., 111 N.Y. 550; Buckley v. G. P. Co., 113 id. 545; Bohn v. Havermeyer, 114 id. 296, 297; Sweeny v. B. & J. E. Co., 101 id. 520; Clark v. Barnes, 37 Hun, 289; Haas v. B., N.Y. & P. R. R. Co., 47 id. 145; Evans v. L. S. & M. S. R. R. Co., 12 id. 289; Williams v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 39 id. 432; Kelry v. S. S., etc., Co., 20 Wkly. Dig. 192; Wright v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 25 N.Y. 562; Gibson v. Erie R. Co., 63 id. 448; Loonan v. Brockway, 3 Robt. 74; Jones v. Rood, 8 J. & S. 248; Desmond v. Rose, 14 id. 569; Sammon v. N.Y. & H. R. R. Co., 62 N.Y. 251; Glendenning v. Shay, 22 Hun, 78; Laning v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 49 N.Y. 520-532.) The fact that the machinery failed to work properly did not show that it was unfit for use, no accident having occurred to it before, and no defect being visible or ascertainable. ( Marsh v. Chickering, 101 N.Y. 401; Curran v. W. C. & M. Co., 36 id. 103; Cordell v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 75 id. 330; Terry v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 22 Barb. 574;
Searles v. M. R. G. Co., 101 N.Y. 662; Laflin v. B. & S. R. R. Co., 106 id. 136.)Defendants having done all they could in regard to the furnishing of appliances, and having furnished...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP