145 N.Y. 296, Sisco v. Lehigh & H.R. Ry. Co.
|Citation:||145 N.Y. 296|
|Party Name:||NELLIE SISCO, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. THE LEHIGH AND HUDSON RIVER RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.|
|Case Date:||March 12, 1895|
|Court:||New York Court of Appeals|
Argued February 28, 1895.
Isaac H. Maynard for appellant. The trial court erred in submitting to the jury the question as to whether the defendant was not negligent in putting the mail crane so close to the road. There was not sufficient evidence in the case upon which negligence in this respect could be predicated or inferred. ( Dobbins v. Brown, 119 N.Y. 188; Reichel v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 130 id. 682.) The trial judge erred in holding that it was a question of fact for the jury, whether the defendant was not negligent in failing to give reasonable warning to its employees of the presence of the mail crane, so that they might guard against the danger. ( Lovejoy v. B. & L. R. R. Co., 125 Mass. 79; Bellows v. P. & N.Y. C. & R. Co., 157 Penn. St. 51; Kern v. D. C. & S. R. Co., 125 N.Y. 50; Crown v. Orr, 140 id. 450.) The judgment cannot be upheld upon the ground of any alleged negligence upon the part of the defendant in making use of the particular kind of a mail crane which it did. ( France v. N.Y. L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 143 N.Y. 182; Flinn v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 142 id. 11; Williams v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 106 id. 634; Gibson v. E. R. Co., 63 id. 450.)
John W. Lyon for respondent. As to defendant's motion for a non-suit on the ground that there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, it is urged that defendant's negligence was of the most glaring and culpable nature. ( Plank v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 60 N.Y. 607; Fredenburgh v. N. C. R. Co., 114 id. 582; Palmer v. D. & H. C. Co., 120 id. 110; Donnegan v. Erhardt, 119 id. 468; Wallace v. C. V. R. R. Co., 138 id. 302; Meeks v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co.,
69 Hun, 488; 140 N.Y. 622.)The second ground stated in defendant's motion for a non-suit as to risk assumed by plaintiff is untenable. ( Kain v. Smith, 89 N.Y. 375; Mehan v. R. R. Co., 73 id. 585; Pantzar v. T. F. I. M. Co., 99 id. 368; Buckley v. R. R. Co., 117 id. 645; McGovern v. C. V. R. R. Co., 123 id. 280; Wallace v. R. R. Co., 138 id. 302; Meeks v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 69 Hun, 488; 140 N.Y. 622; Davidson v. Cornell, 132 id. 228.)
ANDREWS, Ch. J.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP