18 N.Y. 432, Boldt v. New York Cent. R. Co.

Citation:18 N.Y. 432
Party Name:BOLDT v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.
Case Date:December 01, 1858
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 432

18 N.Y. 432

BOLDT

v.

NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.

New York Court of Appeal

December 1, 1858

COUNSEL

Henry W. Rogers, for the appellant.

Albert Sawin, for the respondent.

Page 433

JOHNSON, Ch. J.

The general rule that an employer is not responsible to one employee for injury occasioned by another employee, engaged in the same general undertaking, is firmly settled in this state. (Sherman v. Rochester and Syracuse Railroad Company, 17 N.Y. 153; Russell v. Hudson River Railroad Company, Id., 134, and cases there cited.) The plaintiff was employed to labor in graveling and ballasting a new track, which was on the same road-bed with and about six feet distant from the old track, and was injured by a train of cars of the defendants running on the new track, on which no train of cars had before been run. The plaintiff who suffered and the persons who caused the injury were in the service of one employer--the railroad company--the plaintiff in preparing a track and the others in running trains, but both in the common enterprise of maintaining and operating the railroad. If the plaintiff had been engaged in repairing the old track and the injury had occurred to him while digging gravel for that purpose, on the site of the new track, by the cars being thrown from the track and falling upon him, his case could not in principle have been distinguished from that of a switch tender or other person employed in the company's service about the track, and injured in such service. Nor can I conceive that a different principle would apply in case the same accident occurred while the injured person was employed in preparing a new track on the site of the gravel pit, instead of digging gravel to repair the old track. In each case the liability to injury would be incident to the employment. In accepting service on such a new track, in the case supposed, he must be taken to have known that his employers were engaged in running cars on the old track, and that he was therefore to incur such hazard as might be occasioned by the negligence...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP