Hannigan v. Lehigh & H. R. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 November 1898
• Citation: 51 N.E. 992,157 N.Y. 244
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: HANNIGAN v. LEHIGH & H. R. RY. CO.

157 N.Y. 244

51 N.E. 992

HANNIGAN

v.LEHIGH & H. R. RY. CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 22, 1898.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, Second department.

Action by Richard Hannigan against the Lehigh & Hudson River Railway Company. From a judgment of the general term (36 N. Y. Supp. 293), affirming a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

This action was to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence. The allegations of the complaint were that the defendant furnished for the use of the plaintiff a freight car with broken, defective, unusual, unsafe, and dangerous coupling appliances, in that such appliances were mismatched, uneven, and entirely useless and inadequate for the purposes for which they were placed in use by the defendant, and that it negligently and carelessly permitted, used, and maintained the same. The answer contained a general denial. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant moved for a nonsuit upon the grounds-‘First, that the accident which caused the plaintiff's injury was, under the circumstances of this case, a risk which he assumed as an employé of this defendant, and for which the defendant is not liable; second, that there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant which caused the accident to the plaintiff on this occasion; third, that no negligence or omission of duty on the part of the defendant has been shown.’ That motion was denied, and the defendant excepted. When the evidence was finally closed, the defendant again renewed its motion for a nonsuit upon the grounds already stated, and also upon the further ground that the violation of the rule requiring the use of coupling sticks was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and prevents a recovery by him. That motion was also denied, and the defendant excepted. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was a brakeman and had been in the employ of the defendant about three months. His work was upon freight trains running between Phillipsburg and Maybrook. The accident occurred at about 7 o'clock on the morning of December 5, 1893, at Hudson Junction. The train arrived there at about that hour. The plaintiff uncoupled the engine and tender from the head car of the train, so that it might take a fresh supply of water from the tank or crane at that place. The engine was then run back to the train, and while coupling the tender to the car the plaintiff's hand was caught between the drawheads and injured. There were no deadwoods upon the car to which the tender was being coupled. The plaintiff gave evidence to the effect that if there had been double deadwoods upon the car to which the tender was coupled his injury would not have occurred, and that cars in common use ordinarily have double deadwoods. Still, it is manifest, from all the evidence in the case, that the purpose of deadwoods is not to prevent the drawheads from coming together, and that in many, if not most, cases the drawheads come in contact before the bumpers meet. The plaintiff upon his cross-examination testified: ‘These drawheads are between the bumpers on the car and the engine. They extend from either end of the car. They are attached to a bar that runs back under the sill of the car. At the end of these drawheads there is a sort of a spring, so that when the drawheads strike there is spring to the car that way that relieves it. That is what is called slacking the train. In the case of cars, when you are called upon to couple them, the drawheads and bumpers come together at the same time about. They will strike, and this spring will give, and then the bumpers will come together. As a general thing, the bumpers will generally come together first, but they just strike so as to give an opportunity to the brakeman to insert the link.’ Upon examination by his own counsel he further testified: ‘The bumpers generally strike first on some of the cars; sometimes the drawheads and bumpers strike about together. When the bumpers strike first, the drawheads cannot come together at all.’ The plaintiff's witness Drake also testified: ‘In coupling cars there is some cars that the drawheads come together first and others the bumpers comes together first. In cars where the drawheads come together first, sometimes the bumpers touch afterwards; the most of them will. If the cars are struck pretty hard, the bumpers will come together. When they are struck hard, the drawheads strike first, and then the bumpers come together with great force, and when they come down slowly the drawheads strike and the bumpers do not, if they don't strike very hard. They may strike very light, though. If they strike very light, it depends upon what cars they are whether the drawheads touch when the connection is made and the bumpers do not strike at all. There is a great difference in cars, and there is a difference in...