151 N.Y. 411, Mcinerney v. President, Etc., of Delaware & H. Canal Co.

Citation:151 N.Y. 411
Party Name:JOHN MCINERNEY, Appellant, v. THE PRESIDENT, MANAGERS AND COMPANY OF THE DELAWARE AND HUDSON CANAL COMPANY, Respondent.
Case Date:January 19, 1897
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 411

151 N.Y. 411

JOHN MCINERNEY, Appellant,

v.

THE PRESIDENT, MANAGERS AND COMPANY OF THE DELAWARE AND HUDSON CANAL COMPANY, Respondent.

New York Court of Appeal

January 19, 1897

Argued December 17, 1896.

COUNSEL

J. Newton Fiero for appellant. Willard could not, without notice to McInerney and without his assent, place plaintiff in

Page 412

such a relation to this defendant as to deprive him of a remedy for defendant's negligence. Plaintiff had no knowledge of the manner of running the engine or of the custom to notify Willard, and Willard's acceptance of notice on behalf of his employees was, therefore, not sufficient to bind this plaintiff. ( Kenney v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 54 Hun, 145; 125 N.Y. 422; Brewer v. N.Y. L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 124 N.Y. 59; Ominger v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 4 Hun, 163.)Defendant was bound to use the same care and caution as it would be obliged to use upon its own track for the protection of persons properly engaged thereon, and the question is substantially that stated by the court on refusing to grant nonsuit, namely: Whether the defendant discharged its whole duty toward plaintiff by giving notice to Willard and failing to notify the men actually engaged upon the track? ( Barton v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 1 T. & C. 297; 56 N.Y. 660; Ominger v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 4 Hun, 163; Goodfellow v. B., H. & E. R. R. Co., 106 Mass. 461; Stinson v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 32 N.Y. 336; O'Harra v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 92 Hun, 56; Young v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 30 Barb. 229; 13 Daly, 294; Wittenberg v. Seitz, 8 A.D. 439; Conlan v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 74 Hun, 115.) The fact that Willard was grossly negligent does not excuse the defendant. Defendant cannot escape because of concurrent negligence of a third party. ( Barrett v. T. A. R. R. Co., 45 N.Y. 628; Coppins v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 48 Hun, 293; Ring v. City of Cohoes, 77 N.Y. 83; Ehrgott v. Mayor, etc., 96 N.Y. 264; Taylor v. City of Yonkers, 105 N.Y. 202; Slater v. Mersereau, 64 N.Y. 138; Galvin v. Mayor, etc., 112 N.Y. 223.) There was gross negligence on the part of the defendant in backing in this yard without giving notice to the persons on the track, and it violated not only its common-law duty, but its own rules and regulations applicable to such cases. ( Coughtry v. G. W. Co., 56 N.Y. 129; Devlin v. Smith, 89 N.Y. 470; Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N.Y. 397; Barton v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 1 T. & C. 297; Lewis v. N.Y. L. E. & W. R. R.

Page 413

Co., 123 N.Y. 496; Vandewater v. N.Y. & N. E. R. R. Co., 135 N.Y. 583; Noonan v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 42 N.Y. S. R. 44; Murphy v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 118 N.Y. 527.)

Lewis E. Carr for respondent. The evidence did not point out any duty owing by the defendant to the plaintiff, which it omitted to perform, and, therefore, his case failed. ( Flinn v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 142 N.Y. 11; T. R. R. Co. v. Munger,...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP