Fredenburg v. Northern Cent. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1889
• Citation: 114 N.Y. 582,21 N.E. 1049
• Parties: FREDENBURG v. NORTHERN CENT. RY. CO.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

114 N.Y. 582

21 N.E. 1049

FREDENBURG

v.NORTHERN CENT. RY. CO.¹

Court of Appeals of New York,

Second Division.

June 25, 1889.

Appeal from judgment of the general term of the supreme court in the Fourth judicial department, affirming judgment entered on a verdict against the defendant.

Diven & Redfield, for appellant.

H. Austin Clark, for respondent.

BRADLEY, J.

The action was founded upon the alleged negligence of the defendant, and brought to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff while in the service of the defendant. The plaintiff had been in such service three days as switchman in the defendant's yard at Elmira, N. Y., and then, while engaged in coupling cars, his arm was crushed, and, as the consequence, was amputated. The evidence warranted the conclusion that the injury was caused by his stepping into a cattle-guard where he was proceeding to couple cars; and the charge of negligence against the defendant is made upon the fact that it had put and maintained, as it had, the cattle-guard at that place. It was near the scales where the defendant weighed its cars, and on and over it the cars passed when pushed from the scales after being weighed. On this occasion the defendant was engaged in weighing cars; and, when the weight of one was taken, that car was shoved off and, at the same time, another placed on the scales by the movement of the engine at the other end of the train. In that manner cars were displaced from and placed upon the scales, until the weighing of those of the train put there for that purpose was completed. When the second one was shoved from the scales, the plaintiff was directed to go and couple it with the car which preceded it. This he was proceeding to do when he received the injury. The ends which he sought to couple of the two cars were over the cattle-guard, which he stepped into and fell; and it must here be assumed that this was the cause of the injury. His arm was caught between the bumpers of those approaching cars, and crushed.

When the plaintiff entered into the defendant's employment he assumed the usual hazards of the service and such risks as were apparent to observation. Gibson v. Railroad Co., 63 N. Y. 449. But the duty was with the defendant to use reasonable care in providing suitable means, appliances, and structures, with a view to the safety of its employés, and that they might not unnecessarily be exposed to danger of injury in the service. The use of cattle-guards is essentially proper for recognized purposes at some places on railroads. The question has relation to the location and situation of this one. It had been there for several years; and, although it had been usual to couple over it cars as they came from the scales, no...