Eaton v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 June 1900
• Citation: 163 N.Y. 391,57 N.E. 609
• Parties: EATON v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

163 N.Y. 391

57 N.E. 609

EATON

v.NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 12, 1900.

Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, Fourth department.

Action by Edwin A. Eaton against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. From a judgment of the appellate division, Fourth department (43 N. Y. Supp. 666), reversing a judgment for plaintiff, he appeals. Reversed.

William S. Jenney, for appellant.

Edward Harris, for respondent.

CULLEN, J.

This action was brought, servant against master, to recover damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff was an experienced brakeman in the defendant's employ, and at the time of the accident was in service on a freight train. While applying the brake, the attachment of the brake chain to the foot of the brake staff gave way, and the plaintiff was precipitated from the top of the car upon the track, where his legs were run over by the year car of the train. The car on which the plaintiff attempted to set the brake was that of another company, which had been received for transportation at Buffalo. On an examination after the accident it appeared that the eyebolt, by which the chain had been attached to the foot of the brake staff, was broken. Evidence was given to the effect that the shank or pin of the eyebolt had been worn to such an extent that it was only half its original thickness; that this rendered the bolt liable to break, not only on account of the loss of metal, but because of the play which was given the pin in the hole in the brake shaft in which it was set. There was also evidence given from which the jury might have found that a reasonable inspection of the pin and brake shaft at this point would have disclosed the weakness of the parts. The car was inspected at Buffalo by the defendant's inspectors, but the condition of the eyebolt was not noticed. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which, a motion for a new trial having been denied, a judgment was subsequently entered. On appeal the judgment and order were reversed by the appellate division, but, as stated in the order of that court, ‘upon questions of law only, the court having examined the facts and found no error therein.’

The learned appellate division, in its discussion of the case, assumed that the question whether the defect in the eyebolt was discoverable or not by reasonable inspection was one of fact for the jury. This assumption, in our opinion, was warranted by the evidence, the details of which it would not be profitable to recite. That it is the duty of the master to furnish his servants with safe and suitable appliances, so far as reasonable care will accomplish that result, may be now considered as an elementary rule of law, and this duty applies to cars received from other companies as well as to its own. ‘A railroad company is bound to inspect the cars of another company used upon its road, just as it would inspect its own cars. If owes this duty as master, and is responsible for the consequences of such defects as would be disclosed or discovered by ordinary inspection. When cars come to it from another road which have defects visible or discernible by ordinary examination, it must either remedy such defects or refuse to take them.’ Goodrich v. Railroad Co., 116 N. Y. 398, 22 N. E. 397. See Gottlieb v. Railroad Co., 100 N. Y. 462, 3 N. E. 344,5 L. R. A. 750; Railroad Co. v. Mackey, 157 U. S. 72, 15 Sup. Ct. 491, 39 L. Ed. 624. This doctrine was accepted by the learned court below, but it held that the defendant was exempted from liability because of the following rule prescribing the duty of its employés, to which plaintiff was deemed to have assented: ‘Rule 153. At all stoppings of trains the brakemen or trainmen must inspect the wheels, brakes, and trucks of the car, and report any defects immediately to the conductor.’ The court reasoned that under this rule the duty of an inspection was devolved upon the trainmen equally with the car inspectors at Buffalo; that the inspectors were fellow servants of the trainmen in the duty of inspection; that the negligence of the former in the discharge of their duty was negligence of fellow servants; and that, if it was negligence on the part of the inspectors not to have discovered the defective character of the brake, similar omission on the part of the plaintiff or the trainmen constituted contributory negligence on the plaintiff's part. There can be no question that, apart from the rule quoted, inspectors are not fellow servants of the trainmen, so as to relieve a railroad company from liability to the latter for injuries occasioned by the negligence of the former. The duty which the master, as such, owes to his employés, of exercisingreasonable care that the appliances furnished them should be safe and suitable, cannot be delegated so as to relieve the master from responsibility; and, so far as it is performed by others, the negligence of any...