98 A.D. 261, Connors v. King Line

Citation:98 A.D. 261
Party Name:FANNY CONNORS, as Administratrix, etc., of BARNEY CONNORS, Deceased, Respondent, v. THE KING LINE, LIMITED, Appellant. MARGARET MONAHAN, as Administratrix, etc., of JOHN J. MONAHAN, Deceased, Respondent, v. THE KING LINE, LIMITED, Appellant.
Court:New York Supreme Court Appelate Division, Second Department
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 261

98 A.D. 261

FANNY CONNORS, as Administratrix, etc., of BARNEY CONNORS, Deceased, Respondent,

v.

THE KING LINE, LIMITED, Appellant. MARGARET MONAHAN, as Administratrix, etc., of JOHN J. MONAHAN, Deceased, Respondent,

v.

THE KING LINE, LIMITED, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

November Term, 1904

APPEAL in each of the above-entitled actions by the defendant, The King Line, Limited, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 23d day of April, 1903, upon the verdict of a jury for $10,000 in the first action and for $8,000 in the second above-entitled action, and also in each action from an order entered

Page 262

in said clerk's office on the 28th day of April, 1903, denying the defendant's motion in such action for a new trial made upon the minutes.

COUNSEL

J. Parker Kirlin [Charles R. Hickox with him on the brief], for the appellant.

Herbert C. Smyth [Sumner B. Stiles and Charles C. Sanders with him on the brief], for the respondents.

HOOKER, J.:

The appeals in these cases are from judgments in favor of the plaintiffs, and orders denying motions in the respective actions for new trials. The intestates in both cases received injuries in the same accident, from which they died. The plaintiffs are their respective administratrices, who seek to recover damages for the deaths, claiming they were caused by the negligence of the defendant. The cases were tried before the same jury, and on practically the same evidence, except that dealing with the earning capacity, habits and health of the different intestates.

The defendant had chartered to one Munson the steamship King Gruffydd, and this vessel was preparing to discharge her cargo upon a lighter which had been placed alongside for that purpose. The intestates were employees of the stevedore, and were present at the time of the accident to take part in his work. The port boom at the forward hatch had been rigged with the topping lift, whose more particular description will follow, and by means of a fall from the boom a skid was being raised from the lighter to the rail of the vessel to assist in the discharge of the cargo from the latter to the former. The topping lift was shackled to the deck and from there passed through a block on the mast and out to the boom. One end of the skid had been raised a short distance when the topping lift parted, precipitating the boom and skid which fell in such a manner that the intestates received injuries from which they died. The topping lift was a wire cable; in one end an eye had been inserted by bending the cable around a metal ring concave on its outer periphery and splicing the end into the cable, just above the ring. The cable gave way at the point where this splice was made. To guard against the liability to retain water and the corrosive action

Page 263

of rust at the point where the splice is made it is usual to wrap bagging saturated with oil...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP