76 N.Y. 125, De Graff v. New York Cent. and Hudson River Railroad Co.
|Citation:||76 N.Y. 125|
|Party Name:||AARON P. A. DE GRAFF, Appellant, v. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent.|
|Case Date:||January 28, 1879|
|Court:||New York Court of Appeals|
Argued Jan. 16, 1879.
Scott Lord, for appellant. In order to relieve defendant from liability it must appear that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of plaintiff's co-employes. ( Flike v. B. and A. R. R. Co., 53 N.Y. 533; S. & R. on Neg., pp. 9, 10, § 89.) The question whether the chain was defective was one for the jury. ( Coughtry v. Globe Wool. Co., 56 N.Y. 128, 129; Kirkpatrick v. N.Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 6 N.Y. W. D., 106; Cook v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 1 Abb. Ct. of App. D., 432; Bernhard v. Rens. and S. R. R. Co., Id., 131; Weber v. N.Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 58 N.Y. 451; King v. N.Y. C. and H. R. R. Co., N.Y. W. D., 500.) Plaintiff being a minor the law as to master and servant has no application to this case. ( Holmes v. Clark, 7 H. & N. [ Exch.], 944; Wilson v. Merry, H. L. R., July, 1868; Warner v. Erie R. R., 39 N.Y. 479; Laning v. N.Y. C., 49 Id., 532; Flike v. B. and A. R. R. Co., 53 Id., 555; Besel v. B. and A. R. R. Co., 70 Id., 173; Spellman v. Fisher Iron Co., 56 Barb., 155; Farwell v. B. and W.
R. R. Co., 4 Metc., 49; Albro v. A. C. Co., 6 Cush., 75; Snow v. Housatonic R. R., 8 Al., 441; 1 Redfield on Railways, 549, n. 15; Dixon v. Rankin, 1 Am. R. C., 569; Bingham on Infancy, 49-60; Tyler on Infancy, 50; Story on Contracts, § 13; 1 Parsons on Con., 243; 1 Blackstone, 465; Rodgers v. Kruger, 7 J. R., 557; Farnam v. Atkins, 2 Kib. R., 623.)
J. Thomas Spriggs, for respondent. There was an entire failure to show negligence on the part of defendant or its agents in furnishing or knowingly using defective cars, brakes or other materials, and in employing unfit persons to inspect and repair, and the plaintiff should, therefore, have been nonsuited. (Redfield on Regs., § 131; Faulkner v. Erie R'y, 49 Barb., 324-327-328-329; Warner v. Erie R'y, 39 N.Y. [ 12 Tiff.], 468-470; Wright v. N.Y. C. R. R. R. Co., 25 N.Y. 562; Toomey v. R'y Co., 3 Com. B., N. S. [ [[91 E. C. L. R., 1], 146-149; Cotton v. Wood, 8 C. B. N. S. [ 98 Id.], 568-570; Morgan v. R'y Co., 5 B. & S. [ 117 Id.], 736-740; Wonder v. B. and O. R'y Co., 3 Am. Rep., 143, 147n; Riley v. Baxendale, 6 Hurls & Nonn. Exch., 445-447-448; Brown v. Acc. Cotton Co., 3 Hurls & Colt. Exch., 511-518-519-520; Redhead v. R'y Co., 4 L. R. Q. B., 379; Welfare v. L. and B. R'y Co., Id., 692-695-696; Laning v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 49 N.Y. 521-532-533; Rose v. B. and Albany R. R. Co., 58 Id., 217-219; Baulee v. N.Y. and H. R. R. Co., 59 Id., 355-359-365-366; Curtis v. R. and S. R. R. Co., 18 Id., 525-527-531; Reed v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 56 Barb., 493-495; Moore v. Goedel, 34 N.Y. 527, 531.) Defendant having furnished the chain plaintiff took the risk of its endurance. ( Laning v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 49 N.Y. 521; Wonder v. B. and O. R. R. Co., 3 Am. R., 143.) Plaintiff being an employe assumed all risks of the business. ( Laning v. R. R. Co., 49 N.Y. 521, 532; Wright v. R. R. Co., 25 Id., 526; Wonder v. R. R., 3 Am. R., 143; De Graff v. R. R., 3 N.Y. S. C. [ T. & C.], 256; Toomey v. R'y Co., 3 C. B. N. S. [ 91 E. C. L.], 146; Cotton v. Wood,
8 Id . [ 98 Id.], 568; Morgan v. R'y Co., 5 B. & S. [117 Id.], 736; Brown v. Cotton Co., 3 Hurls & Colt. Exch., 511; Welfare v. R'y Co., 4 L. R. [ Q. B.], 692; Warner v....
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP