Bateman v. New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 March 1904
• Parties: BATEMAN v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

178 N.Y. 84

70 N.E. 109

BATEMAN

v.NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 15, 1904.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Action by Margaret Bateman against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (73 N. Y. Supp. 390) reversing a judgment for plaintiff, she appeals. Reversed.

Theodore E. Hancock, for appellant.

A. H. Cowie and Frank Hiscock, for respondent.

BARTLETT, J.

This is an action to recover damages for alleged personal injuries. The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,000, and judgment was duly entered thereon.

The Appellate Division states in its order on reversing this judgment that it was upon questions of law only, and that the facts had been examined, and no error found therein. It is therefore incumbent on the plaintiff (appellant) to show that there was no error of law justifying the reversal of the judgment.

The plaintiff resides in the city of Syracuse, and at the time of her injury, the 17th of November, 1898, was employed by the defendant company as a cleaner in its freight office. She had filled this position since the May previous. In the floor of this office, outside of the desks, and in the space for the public, was a trapdoor, located near the wall of the building. It was proved that beneath the floor of this office was the heating plant, consisting of steam pipes and other appliances. The trapdoor in question was to enable plumbers to reach this plant when necessary to replace or repair the same. The space between the trapdoor and the ground was about three feet, the grade falling off toward the center of the building. The manner of the construction and operation of the trapdoor has a controlling bearing on this case. The plaintiff swore a carpenter as an expert, who had examined the premises, and he testified in part as follows: ‘This trap door that was in the floor was 25 1/2 inches long and 22 1/2 inches wide. It is on the east side of the freight office. * * * The edge of the hole is one foot from the mopboard on that side of the office. It extends out from that 22 1/2 inches. The cover of this hole is made of the same material of which the floor is made. The boards are hard pine, an inch and an eighth thick. There are nine boards making this cover-nine pieces. There is a batten nine inches wide on the underside. The boards are screwed or fastened to this batten. * * * Now, the * * * floor is so made that it gives a bearing to each end of this little door of an inch and a half; and, when the door is laid down in its place, it is flush with the floor-smooth, so you walk over it. There are no hinges on it. * * * When down in its place properly, * * * it is virtually a portion of the floor, and is a good, tight fit. It fits flush with the floor. * * * If the door was in its proper position in the floor, one would possibly pass it without noticing that there was a trapdoor there. * * * I saw them take it out. The man that took it out had to take a little screw-driver and put it under this corner here to pry it up. Then, when I was done with my measurements, laid it down, gave it a kick with my toe to knock it back into its place, and it went down. * * * It fits in there very tight.’ At the time of the accident, plumbers were at work beneath the floor on the steam-heating apparatus, and had opened the trapdoor in order to reach the place. The plaintiff, at about half-past 3 o'clock in the afternoon, while engaged in her work, approached the south side of the office, near the location of the trapdoor. She thus testifies in this connection: ‘I hadn't worked on that side of the office before. I worked on the other side. * * * I had never seen this trapdoor. Didn't know of its existence. At the time I stepped on this door, we were just finishing up to get through; and the other woman came to me, and she asked me if I was through, and I said, ‘Yes.’ I was just wiping the desk, and went to reach up to wipe off the light; and, just as I stepped around the end of the desk, I stepped on this loose piece of floor, and it flew right up and struck me on the left knee, and, when I saw the floor opening, I felt my feet going from under me, and I made a twist to swing around, not to fall in, and then I went with harder force against the edge of the floor, and went right down through, and the loose piece of floor was between me and the tight floor that was in the hole. This piece of flooring tipped up in the hole. Both of my legs didn't go into this hole. The right foot went down to my body, and the other one-my knee-right in there. There was a radiator there. I struck against it when I was falling. * * * I remained in bed over three months steady. The doctor came sometimes twice a day, and he came every day for over three months. I had three broken ribs. Then, after I got up, the knee that I bruised in the fall-- When I got up, my knee was sore. Inflammation set in. I was so weak I coudn't do any work.' The witness also testified that at the time of the trial her knee was still troubling her, and that she had never regained her normal condition of health.

The trial judge submitted this case to the jury in an exceedingly fair charge. He stated to them, in substance, that in an action based on negligence the plaintiff must show that the injury happened by reason of some negligence on the part of the defendant, without any negligence on the part of the plaintiff that has contributed in any degree to the result; that the duty was upon the defendant to furnish a reasonably safe place for its servants, of whom the plaintiff was one, for the discharge of the duties that they were employed to perform. He then told the jury, with considerable...