Curran v. Lake Champlain & M.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 April 1914
• Citation: 211 N.Y. 60,105 N.E. 105
• Parties: CURRAN v. LAKE CHAMPLAIN & M. R. CO.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

211 N.Y. 60

105 N.E. 105

CURRAN

v.LAKE CHAMPLAIN & M. R. CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 14, 1914.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Action by James R. Curran against the Lake Champlain & Moriah Railroad Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (151 App. Div. 912,135 N. Y. Supp. 1107), affirming a judgment of the Trial Term dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Frank E. Smith, of New York City, for appellant.

Fred W. Dudley, of Port Henry, for respondent.

CARDOZO, J.

The plaintiff was a brakeman on the defendant's railroad. The road is a short one, extending from Port Henry to Mineville, a distance of about seven miles. Because of the steep grade it is not built in a straight course, but runs up the mountain through a series of ‘Y's,’ which mitigate the ascent. The train in question, when made up at Port Henry, consisted of a passenger car, which was placed in the front, then the tender of the engine, then the engine itself, then a number of gondolas, and finally about 20 ore ‘jimmies.’ The latter are small cars, shaped as a hopper, with a running board six or eight inches wide on each side. The brakemen stand on the running board to work the brakes. On the day of the accident the plaintiff was stationed on the last jimmy. When the train reached the first Y it had to be divided and made up again with the cars in a new order. The passenger car was pushed into the stem of the Y and was left standing there. The engine then sttached itself to the gondolas and pushed them into one of the branches of the Y for a distance of about 400 feet. It then went back, picked up the jimmies, and proceeded to push them so as to connect with the gondolas. The plaintiff stood on the jimmy farthest from the engine. His duty was to couple the jimmies and the gondolas when they came together. To prepare for this he was taking out a link which had broken and was putting in a new one. The conductor had instructed him to make this substitution at the Y. While he was bending down in this work a violent jar threw him to the ground, and the he suffered injuries for which he sues. He fell because the engineer had suddenly and without warning stopped the engine. Through some blunder the engine which was pushing the jimmy forward had automatically coupled itself to the passenger car, so that it had the jimmies in front of it and the passenger car behind it. To make up the train properly the passenger car should have been left where it stood until the jimmies and the gondolas had been coupled, and the engine, rejoining the car, should then have taken it through a switch to a position in front of the gondolas at the head of the train. The engineer, on discovering this mistake, applied the air brakes, after he had pushed the jimmies about 50 or 60 feet, and while they were still about 300 feet from the gondolas where a stop was to be expected. He gave no signal that a stop was coming. At that point the grade was downward for a short distance, and, with the sudden stoppage of the engine, the jimmies ran forward to the extent of the slack between them. The jolt increased in intensity as it was communicated from car to car, and the greatest shock was felt at the car farthest from the engine, on which the plaintiff was standing. It was so violent that a companion on the same car, who was standing up and was thus better able to save himself, escaped injury only by jumping to the ground.

[1] We think that the evidence would have justified the jury in finding that the defendant...