Carlson v. Phenix Bridge Co.

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtBROWN
Citation30 N.E. 750,132 N.Y. 273
Decision Date25 March 1892
PartiesCARLSON v. PHENIX BRIDGE CO.

132 N.Y. 273
30 N.E. 750

CARLSON
v.
PHENIX BRIDGE CO.

Court of Appeals of New York,
Second Division.

March 25, 1892.


Appeal from supreme court, general term, second department.

Action by Charles F. Carlson against the Phenix Bridge Company for personal injuries. From a judgment of the general term, entered May 12, 1890, affirming, without opinion, a judgment entered March 5, 1890, dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.


[132 N.Y. 274]J. Edward Swanstrom, for appellant.

A. B. Boardman, for respondent.

[30 N.E. 751]


[132 N.Y. 275]BROWN, J.

The plaintiff was an employe of the defendant, engaged in the construction of an elevated railway in Fulton street, in the city of Brooklyn, and while in the performance of his duties was injured by the fall of a heavy iron girder, and brought this action to recover damages sustained from such injury. For the purpose of lifting the heavy girders from the street to the elevated position they were to occupy in the structure, the defendant used a movable derrick, operated by steam power. The hoisting apparatus included a chain and hook. The plaintiff described the customary method of raising the girders as follows: The hook was fastened into the girders first, so as to raise them on edge, and then enough power was applied to raise them clear off the street, so that they could be placed on blocks. After they were placed on blocks, under their proper position in the structure, other tackle was used, the hook and chain being dispensed with, and they were raised into their permanent position. The immediate cause of the accident which injured the plaintiff was the breaking of the hook when the girder was being raised from the street, and the negligence charged upon the defendant was its failure to furnish a hook strong enough to sustain the weight of the girder. The hook in question was one of a number (testified to be eight or more) made for use in the work of building the railway by a blacksmith in the defendant's employ. They were made about three months prior to the accident from a bar of iron 24 feet long and 1 3/4 inches in diameter, purchased by defendant from Manning, Maxwell & Moore, reputable dealers in iron, and ordered as the ‘best refined,’ which was the best grade of iron in the market. All [132 N.Y. 276]of the hooks had been used in raising similar heavy girders, and none of them were shown to have been weak or insufficient for the work required of them. The one in question had been used during the three months previous to the accident to lift about 200 girders similar to the one which fell upon the plaintiff, and there was nothing in its external appearance to indicate that it was weak, or that the material was not of the best quality. After the accident the iron at the point of fracture was discovered to be bad. The break was square across the shank, and presented a bright appearance, without rust, and the proof tended to the conclusion that it resulted from crystallization in the iron, which could not have been discovered by an external examination. It was not discoverable in the process of making the hook, and when delivered to the employes for use it was supposed to be of the best material.

The appellant claims, and gave evidence to the effect, that a customary test to ascertain the quality of a bar of iron could have been made by the blacksmith by nicking or cutting notches in the bar when cold with a chisel or cutter, and then breaking it, or by bending it over an anvil; that if broken, the grain of the iron would have been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Southern Pac. Co. v. Hetzer, 2,039.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 25 Enero 1905
    ...liability, if he has used as much care as a person or ordinary prudence would exercise to protect his own safety (Carlson v. Bridge Co., 132 N.Y. 273, 30 N.E. 750; Probst v. Delamater, 100 N.Y. 266, 3 N.E. 184; Sappenfield v. Railroad Co., 91 Cal. 48, 27 P. 590; Brymer v. Southern Pac. Co.,......
  • Dibbert v. Metro. Inv. Co., No. 72.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 1 Mayo 1914
    ...207, 208, 209, 23 N. E. 462;Palmer v. D. & H. C. Co., 120 N. Y. 170, 174, 175, 24 N. E. 302, 17 Am. St. Rep. 629;Carlson v. P. B. Co., 132 N. Y. 273, 277, 30 N. E. 750;Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574, 594, 22 Pac. 266, 5 L. R. A. 598, 13 Am. St. Rep. 175;T. & P. R. R. Co. v. Hamilton, 66......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Reed
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 15 Noviembre 1909
    ...617; 4 Thomp. Neg., §§ 3803 c, 3926; 39 N.Y. 408; 7 Lea (Tenn.) 367; 86 Va. 270; 20 R. S. 926; 34 Kans. 326; 109 Wis. 602; 42 Id. 520; 132 N.Y. 273; 38 Mich. 537. 2. The court erred in giving the second instruction, in refusing defendant's first and third. Authorities supra. Jones & Seawel ......
  • Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Heimlich, 1,209.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 14 Enero 1904
    ...20 Am. & Eng.Ency.Law, 78, 79; De Graff v. N.Y. Cent. Rd., 76 N.Y. 125; Marsh v. Chickering, 101 N.Y. 390, 5 N.E. 56; Carlson v. P.B. Co., 132 N.Y. 273, 30 N.E. 750; Railway Co. v. Aiken, 89 Tenn. 245, 14 S.W. 1082; Smith v. N.Y., & C., R. Co., 164 N.Y. 491, 58 N.E. 655; Service v. Shoneman......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Southern Pac. Co. v. Hetzer, 2,039.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 25 Enero 1905
    ...liability, if he has used as much care as a person or ordinary prudence would exercise to protect his own safety (Carlson v. Bridge Co., 132 N.Y. 273, 30 N.E. 750; Probst v. Delamater, 100 N.Y. 266, 3 N.E. 184; Sappenfield v. Railroad Co., 91 Cal. 48, 27 P. 590; Brymer v. Southern Pac. Co.,......
  • Dibbert v. Metro. Inv. Co., No. 72.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 1 Mayo 1914
    ...207, 208, 209, 23 N. E. 462;Palmer v. D. & H. C. Co., 120 N. Y. 170, 174, 175, 24 N. E. 302, 17 Am. St. Rep. 629;Carlson v. P. B. Co., 132 N. Y. 273, 277, 30 N. E. 750;Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574, 594, 22 Pac. 266, 5 L. R. A. 598, 13 Am. St. Rep. 175;T. & P. R. R. Co. v. Hamilton, 66......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Reed
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 15 Noviembre 1909
    ...617; 4 Thomp. Neg., §§ 3803 c, 3926; 39 N.Y. 408; 7 Lea (Tenn.) 367; 86 Va. 270; 20 R. S. 926; 34 Kans. 326; 109 Wis. 602; 42 Id. 520; 132 N.Y. 273; 38 Mich. 537. 2. The court erred in giving the second instruction, in refusing defendant's first and third. Authorities supra. Jones & Seawel ......
  • Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Heimlich, 1,209.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 14 Enero 1904
    ...20 Am. & Eng.Ency.Law, 78, 79; De Graff v. N.Y. Cent. Rd., 76 N.Y. 125; Marsh v. Chickering, 101 N.Y. 390, 5 N.E. 56; Carlson v. P.B. Co., 132 N.Y. 273, 30 N.E. 750; Railway Co. v. Aiken, 89 Tenn. 245, 14 S.W. 1082; Smith v. N.Y., & C., R. Co., 164 N.Y. 491, 58 N.E. 655; Service v. Shoneman......
  • 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