Quinn v. New Jersey Lighterage Co.

Decision Date02 April 1885
Citation23 F. 363
PartiesQUINN v. NEW JERSEY LIGHTERAGE CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Chas J. Patterson, for complainant.

Benedict Taft & Benedict, for defendant.

WALLACE J.

The plaintiff was injured by the negligence of the captain of a barge, owned by the defendant, while engaged in loading the barge with iron rails. The captain at the time was assisting the plaintiff and other employees in the work. In loading the rails, two men worked on the hand-winch, one hooked the tongs upon the rails, and two pushed and guided the rails into the barge, when they were raised by the men at the winch; and it was the duty of the man at the tongs to give the order to hoist to the men at the winch when the tongs were properly hooked. Prior to the accident, one Lee had been at the tongs and the captain had been helping one of the men at the winch. At the time of the accident, the captain was at the tongs and the plaintiff was one of the men to guide the rails. The captain gave the order to hoist prematurely, and the rail fell upon the plaintiff, inflicting the injuries for which his suit was brought.

Upon the trial the judge instructed the jury that the negligence of the captain was the negligence of the defendant, and the motion for a new trial raises the question whether that instruction was correct. Stated in other terms, the question is whether an employer is liable to an employee for the negligence of a vice-principal in doing the duty of a co-employee of the person injured.

It was assumed at the trial that the recent case of Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Ross, 112 U.S. 377, S.C. 5 S.Ct. 184, was an adjudication in point which is controlling in this court, and the instructions to the jury were given in consequence. The only question in that case was whether the corporation defendant was liable to an engineer managing the locomotive of a freight train who was injured in consequence of the neglect of a conductor of the train to communicate instructions to the engineer essential to the safety of the train; the conductor, by the regulations of the corporation, being in control of the train and of all employees on it, and responsible for all its movements. The court held that the conductor did not occupy the position of a co-employee with the engineer. Mr. Justice BRADLEY, delivering the opinion, used this language:

'A conductor, having the entire control and management of a railway train, occupies a very different position from the brakeman, the porters, and other subordinates employed. He is in fact, and should be treated as, the personal representative of the corporation, for whose negligence it is responsible to subordinate servants.'

The case turned upon this point, and it having been ruled against the defendant it was not necessary to decide any other question. The conductor was charged with the duty of giving instruction, in the absence of which the engineer could not perform his duties intelligently, or protect himself or his employees from danger. The engineer was injured in consequence of the conductor's failure to perform this duty. As he was not a co-employee of the engineer, the risk of the conductor's negligence was not among those incident to the employment which the engineer impliedly assumed when he engaged in the service of the corporation.

The decision is of marked significance, because it departs from the rule established by the courts of England, New York, and Massachusetts, and other courts, that all those are fellow-servants who are engaged in a common object in the business of the employer, whether they are of the same grade of authority or not. The doctrine of these authorities is that all the employees of the same employer, engaged in carrying forward the same general enterprise, although in different departments and in different ranks of supremacy, are co-employees, who, by the implied terms of their employment, assume towards the employer the risks arising from the negligence of any of their number. The Ross Case, on the other hand, is in line with Cowles v. Richmond, etc., R. Co. 84 N.C. 309; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 205; Whalen v. Centenary Church, 62 Mo. 326; and decisions in Ohio and Kentucky cited in the opinion.

The case does not touch the question here, which is, not whether the defendant is liable to a subordinate employee for the negligent act of the captain in the discharge of his duty but whether the defendant is liable for the negligence of the captain, not as captain, but as a subordinate employee. The solution of this question depends upon the implied obligation assumed by an employer to his servant. Unless there is a breach of that obligation there is no negligence. Briefly stated, this obligation is that the employer will not expose the servant to any unreasonable hazards, in view of the nature of the services to be performed. As to those things which are to be done by the employer personally he undertakes not to be negligent. As to those things which he is not to do personally he undertakes to use due care to see that they are properly done; and as incidents of this obligation he is to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • The City of Norwalk
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 27 Marzo 1893
    ... ... The Queen, 40 F. 694; The ... Frank and Willie, 45 F. 494, and cases there cited; Quinn ... v. Lighterage Co., 23 F. 363. And such in effect is the ... decision of the supreme court in ... Nord ... Deutscher Lloyd S. S. Co., before Judge Green in the district ... of New Jersey, an action in personam, which, from the record ... submitted to me, seems to be in all respects ... ...
  • Fogarty v. St. Louis Transfer Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 17 Marzo 1904
    ...Holtz v. Railroad, 69 Minn. 524; Nat. Fertilizer Co. v. Travis, 102 Tenn. 16; Railroad v. Schwabbe, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 573; Quinn v. N. J. Lighterage Co., 23 F. 363; The 93 F. 218, 87 F. 757; Dwyer v. American Express Co., 55 Wis. 453, 82 Wis. 312; Lee v. Detroit Bridge & Iron Works, 62 Mo. 5......
  • Depuy v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 19 Diciembre 1904
    ... ... 16, 49 S.W. 832; ... Railroad, v. Schwabbe, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 573, 21 S.W ... 706; Quinn v. Lighterage Co., 23 Blatchf. 209, 23 F ... 363; The Miami, 93 F. 218, 35 C. C. A. 281; Drwyer ... ...
  • Clowes v. The Frank and Willie
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 23 Marzo 1891
    ...382; Steam-Ship Co. v. Merchant, 133 U.S. 375, 10 S.Ct. 397; Halverson v. Nisen, 3 Sawy. 562; Anderson v. Winston, 31 F. 528; Quinn v. Lighterage Co., 23 F. 363; The City Alexandria, 17 F. 390-392; The Queen, 40 F. 694-696. attends the seaman wherever he is required to go on shipboard in th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT