Dobbins v. Brown

• Decision Date: 28 January 1890
• Citation: 119 N.Y. 188,23 N.E. 537
• Parties: DOBBINS v. BROWN et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

119 N.Y. 188

23 N.E. 537

DOBBINS

v.BROWN et al.¹

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 28, 1890.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, second department.

E. T. Lovatt, for appellants.

J. Van Vetchen Olcott, for respondent.

RUGER, C. J.

We are of the opinion that the evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants in the case was insufficient to support a verdict against them. The action was brought for the purpose of recovering damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate, who was a servant in the employ of the defendants, and was alleged to have been injured by a fall from a bucket being lowered in a shaft, some 400 feet deep, for the purpose of conveying workmen to a tunnel, the place of their labor. Such an action is supportable only upon the theory of personal negligence on the part of the employer, resulting in the injury complained of. The degree of care required of an employer in protecting his employes from injury has been stated to be the adoption of all reasonable means and precautions to provide for the safety of his servants while in the performance of their work. Corcoran v. Holbrook, 59 N. Y. 517;Pantzar v. Mining Co., 99 N. Y. 368, 2 N. E. Rep. 24. The omission to use such care has been held to be negligence rendering the employer liable for damages occasioned by it, but such neglect must be proved, either by direct evidence, or the proof of facts from which the inference negligence can be legitimately drawn by the jury. It cannot be supported by mere conjecture or surmise, but must be made referable by the proof to some specific cause or defect. It has been held that the mere fact that an accident occurred which caused an injury is not generally, of itself, sufficient to authorize an inference of negligence against a defendant. Curtis v. Railroad Co., 18 N. Y. 534. The negligence alleged in the complaint is that the machinery, appliances, and apparatus used by the defendants in their work, for communication between the surface of the earth and the bottom of the shaft, was unsafe, defective, and insecure, and the specification under this charge was that the dummy yoke, follower, or frame used to steady the bucket or car, while traversing the shaft, was so defective, unsafe, and insecure, and the defendants were so negligent in securing and watching the same, that said dummy yoke or frame fell upon the said intestate, and others who were descending the shaft, and killed four out of five of its occupants, among whom was the plaintiff's intestate. The proof does not support this allegation. It appears that there was but one survivor of the catastrophe, and he was therefore the only eye-witness of the transaction, but was entirely unable to state how it occurred. His testimony was that, some time after the bucket got about halfway down the shaft, something came from above and knocked him out of...