Guilmartin v. Solvay Process Co.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1907 |
| Citation | 189 N.Y. 490,82 N.E. 725 |
| Parties | GUILMARTIN v. SOLVAY PROCESS CO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Action by Dennis Guilmartin against the Solvay Process Company. From an order of the Appellate Division (101 N. Y. Supp. 118,115 App. Div. 794), reversing a judgment of the Trial Term for plaintiff and granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Order of the Appellate Division reversed, and judgment of the Trial Term affirmed.
A. Lee Olmsted, for appellant.
Louis L. Waters, for respondent.
This action is brought under the Employer's Liability Act, Laws 1902, p. 1748, c. 600, servant against master, to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendant was engaged in the manufacture of soda ash and similar products. The plaintiff had been in defendant's employ for a number of years, and for the last portion of the time his duty was to oil the machinery. At the time of the accident a belt in defendant's factory, running from the main shaft to a counter shaft, had become so loose as to wind around the pulley on the shaft. The belt seems to have been stronger than the attachment of the pulley to the shaft, and after it had been drawn as taut as possible from the counter shaft the pulley commenced to revolve on the shaft. To remedy this condition of the machinery it was necessary to loosen the belt. One Mullin was the foreman of the shift or gang to which the plaintiff belonged. Mullin had power to stop the machinery in case of accident or emergency. On being informed of the accident he had the movement of the engine slowed to a certain extent, but did not have it stopped, and then directed the plaintiff, with other workmen, to cut the lacing of the belt; he personally joining in the work. After the belt was cut he directed one of the workmen to throw the loose end on the floor. The shaft pulley being relieved from the strain of the taut belt, again revolved with the shaft and commenced to wind up the belt, the loose end of which struck the plaintiff. He was drawn over the shaft and received injuries which resulted in the loss of his leg. Two questions were submitted to the jury: First, whether Mullin was a person whose sole or principal duty was that of superintendence; second, whether it was negligent not to have stopped the machinery when the plaintiff was put at work to repair the injury to the belt and pulley. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was made and denied. From the other denying that motion and the judgment entered on the verdict an appeal was taken, and both were reversed by the Appellate Division by a divided court, and a new trial granted.
The order of reversal states that it was made solely on questions of law, the facts having been examined, and no error found therein, and hence an appeal from the order lies to this court. The ground on which the Appellate Division placed its decision was that the negligence of Mullin in failingto stop the engine, if negligence it was, was the negligence of a fellow servant in a detail of the work for which, under the decisions in Crispin v. Babbitt, 81 N. Y. 516, 37 Am. Rep. 521,McCosker v. Long Island Railroad Co., 84 N. Y. 77, and Foster v. International Paper Company, 183 N. Y. 50, 75 N. E. 933, the master was not liable, and that therefore the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint made at the close of the evidence should have been granted. We deem this view of the Appellate Division erroneous. The two earlier cases cited by the court below arose before the enactment of the employer's liability act. If the accident in the third case occurred after the enactment of that statute, the action was not brought under that act. Therefore the decision in none of the cases disposes of the present case, which is substantially controlled by our recent decision in McHugh v. Manhattan Railway Company, 179 N. Y. 378, 72 N. E. 312, and Harris v. Baltimore Machine Elevator Works, 188 N. Y. 141, 80 N. E. 1028, which were based on the employer's liability act. That statute, as said by Judge Gray in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sobenis v. Harridge House Assocs. of 1984, 225 E. 57th St. Owners Corp.
...negligence (L 1902, ch 600, § 3; L 1902, ch 2, § 2; Wiley v. Solvay Process Co., 215 N.Y. 584, 587–589 [1915] ; Guilmartin v. Solvay Process Co ., 189 N.Y. 490, 494–495 [1907] ). Section 200, however, also expanded worker protections by expanding the duty to the employers' plant (Gasper, 13......
-
Maue v. Erie R. Co.
...Central Vermont R. R. Co., 138 N. Y. 302, 33 N. E. 1069;Labor Law, § 202, formerly section 3, c. 600, Laws 1902; Guilmartin v. Solvay Process Co., 189 N. Y. 490, 82 N. E. 725;Clark v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 191 N. Y. 416, 84 N. E. 397. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.CULLEN......
-
Smith v. Milliken Bros., Inc
...Miller was acting as superintendent, and that Smith's directions were merely a signal to be passed on by Miller. Guilmartin v. Solvay Process Co., 189 N. Y. 490, 82 N. E. 725;Gallagher v. Newman, 190 N. Y. 444, 83 N. E. 480. The mere presence of a superior does not necessarily prevent a sub......
-
Gallagher v. Newman
...duty, supervision, or command. These principles were last discussed and approved by this court in the case of Guilmartin v. Solvay Process Company, 189 N. Y. 490, 82 N. E. 725. In that case some of the defendant's employés were engaged in readjusting a belt on a pulley. One Mullin was the f......