Basham v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 May 1962 |
| Citation | 11 N.Y.2d 991,229 N.Y.S.2d 428,183 N.E.2d 704 |
| Parties | , 183 N.E.2d 704 James BASHAM, Appellant, v. The PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 10 A.D.2d 948, 201 N.Y.S.2d 362.
Employee brought action against railroad under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, § 1 et seq., 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., for injuries. The employee claimed that movement of wheel-pit platform, on which employee had been working, threw him off balance and caused him to lose grip on 110-pound spring, which fell on his hand, causing the injuries complained of.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, A. David Benjamin, J., rendered judgment dismissing the complaint after the Supreme Court set aside the jury's verdict in favor of the employee, on ground that there was uncontroverted proof that the platform could not move, and the employee appealed.
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. Kleinfeld, J., dissented, on ground that there was sufficient proof in the record that the platform actually moved.
The employee appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the accident resulted from the movement of the platform, and that the railroad's proof was not conclusive as a matter of law that the platform was immovably locked to a fixed railroad car.
Bromsen & Gammerman, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Conboy, Hewitt, O'Brien & Boardman, New York City (David J. Mountan, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
Judgment affirmed, without costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curley v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
...law principles (see, Basham v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 699, 700-701, 83 S.Ct. 965, 966-967, 10 L.Ed.2d 80, rev'g 11 N.Y.2d 991, 229 N.Y.S.2d 428, 183 N.E.2d 704, Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 66 S.Ct. 740, 90 L.Ed. 916). Additionally, under New York precepts of appellate review, t......
-
Hawkins v. William F. Regan, Inc.
...though she had not touched it (cf. Basham v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 699, 83 S.Ct. 965, 10 L.Ed.2d 80, revg. 11 N.Y.2d 991, 229 N.Y.S.2d 428, 183 N.E.2d 704; Higgins v. Ruppert, 124 App.Div. 530, 108 N.Y.S. 919); if it so concluded, it had a right to find against defendant on liabil......
-
Basham v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
...opinion, one judge dissenting, 10 A.D.2d 948, 201 N.Y.S.2d 362, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, also without opinion, 11 N.Y.2d 991, 229 N.Y.S.2d 428, 183 N.E.2d 704. This Court granted certiorari, 371 U.S. 860, 83 S.Ct. 128, 9 L.Ed.2d 98, to consider the propriety of the trial judge's A......
-
Basham v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...not conclusive as a matter of law that the platform was immovably locked to a fixed railroad car. The Court of Appeals, 11 N.Y.2d 991, 229 N.Y.S.2d 428, 183 N.E.2d 704, affirmed the The United States Supreme Court, 372 U.S. 699, 83 S.Ct. 965, 10 L.Ed.2d 80, reversed the judgment and remande......