Grant v. Pennsylvania & N.Y. Canal & R. Co.

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Citation31 N.E. 220,133 N.Y. 657
PartiesGRANT v. PENNSYLVANIA & N. Y. CANAL & R. CO.
Decision Date24 May 1892

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from supreme court, general term, fifth department.

Action by Peter Grant against the Pennsylvania & New York Canal & Railroad Company for personal injuries sustained while in defendant's employ. From a judgment of the general term, affirming a judgment entered on a verdict for plaintiff, and an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Taber & Brainard, for appellant.

William B. Wooden and Charles M. Baker, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The difficulty with the plaintiff's case is that it lacks proof that the injury was caused by any defective appliance. The case is barren of any evidence that the drawhead which broke was defective in such a manner as to involve liability to plaintiff on the part of the defendant. It may have broken on account of a latent defect in the iron, which no inspection would have reached. Whether it did or not we do not know, and there is no evidence upon the subject. No facts are shown from which the cause of the accident can be more than guessed at. There is food for speculation or wonder, but there is no evidence as to the cause. Regarding the alleged defect in the drawbar on the locomotive the evidence is very light that the small deviation from a straight line constituted a defect at all. It was but an inch or an inch and a half in three feet, and the only evidence on the subject on the part of the plaintiff showed there was no difficulty in coupling the drawbar to the drawhead of a car, excepting on a curve. After the accident, the cast iron head of the drawhead where the link goes, and to which a bolt is attached, was found broken, and lying in front of the engine, and attached to the drawbar thereof. These two facts constitute all the plaintiff's evidence as to the cause of the accident. We may speculate and wonder whether the accident was or was not caused by this alleged defect in the drawbar, and whether, by reason of this slight bend, it did not unduly press against the drawhead, and thus cause the fracture of the latter; but there is nothing in the case that would permit us to exchange our speculation or wonder for a belief formed upon the evidence. If the accident occurred by reason of a latent defect in the drawhead of the car, the defendant would not be liable in this case if it had employed competent persons to build the car, and exercised proper...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Antler v. Cox
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1915
    ... ... Crystal Plate Glass Co ... (Mo.), 27 S.W. 516; Pennsylvania Ry. v ... Forstall, 159 F. 893, 87 C. C. A. 73; Finnerty v ... City of Yonkers, 105 N.Y. 202, 59 Am. Rep ... 492, 11 N.E. 642; Grant v. Pennsylvania & N.Y. Canal & R ... Co., 133 N.Y. 657, 31 N.E. 220.) ... ...
  • Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Smith
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1909
    ... ... 833; ... Fuller v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 104 N.W. 414; Grant ... v. Railroad Co., 133 N.Y. 657; Goranson v ... Manufacturing Co., ... v. Bunker Hill, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 844; Schum v ... Pennsylvania R. Co., 107 Pa. St. 8; Pennsylvania R ... Co. v. Weber, 76 Pa. St. 157; ... ...
  • Pugmire v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1907
    ...Huff v. Austin, 46 Ohio St. 386, 21 N.E. 864, 15 Am. St. 613; Wormell v. Railroad, 79 Me. 397, 10 A. 49, 1 Am. St. 321; Grant v. Railroad, 133 N.Y. 659, 31 N.E. 220.) burden of proving that that accident resulted from the negligence of the master rested upon the plaintiff to establish that ......
  • Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Smith, 13,450
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1909
    ... ... 833; ... Fuller v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 104 N.W. 414; Grant ... v. Railroad Co., 133 N.Y. 657; Goranson v ... Manufacturing Co., ... v. Bunker Hill, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 844; Schum v ... Pennsylvania R. Co., 107 Pa. St. 8; Pennsylvania R ... Co. v. Weber, 76 Pa. St. 157; ... ...
  • 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