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

• Decision Date: 03 June 1913
• Citation: 102 N.E. 555,209 N.Y. 20
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: HOGAN v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

209 N.Y. 20

102 N.E. 555

HOGAN

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

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 3, 1913.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Action by Margaret A. Hogan, as administratrix of Frank Hogan, deceased, against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (155 App. Div. 877,139 N. Y. Supp. 1127) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

W. A. Matson, of Rochester, for appellant.

James E. Newell, of Syracuse, for respondent.

CULLEN, C. J.

The action is brought by the personal representatives of a servant against his master to recover for the death of the intestate claimed to have been caused by the master's failure to provide a safe place to work. The deceased was a hostler at the defendant's roundhouse in Rochester, whose duty it was to take charge of a locomotive which had been brought in by the engineer at the end of his run, place it in the roundhouse, and prepare it for use on the next run. The deceased had under him a fireman and assistant. The deceased had been standing inside the roundhouse from three to eight feet from the doorway conversing with the foreman, who instructed him to prepare for use two other engines then in the roundhouse. The fireman and assistant had taken the engine into the roundhouse, placed it on the turntable, and were taking it out to a water tank 75 feet away to fill the engine tank with water, then to place it on a side track ready for the engineer to take it on a regular trip. As the engine was moving at a speed of from three to four miles an hour, the deceased jumped on it, catching hold of the grab handles, but while he was standing on one of the steps, and before he had got into the engine cab, he was struck by the door jamb and was killed.

The negligence charged against the defendant was the insufficiency of the space between the engine and the side of the doorway. The roundhouse had been built some 40 years before, since which time the size of the engines had been increased. The engine which the deceased attempted to board was one of the larger kind in use by the defendant, overhanging the rails 30 inches, and leaving a clear space between it and the side of the doorway of 8 inches. Between an engine of the smaller kind and the doorpost the clear space would have been 16 inches. Evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiff that in another roundhouse of the defendant the clearance between a large engine and the door jamb was 14 inches; that in one recently erected by the defendant the clearance was 20 inches; and that in various roundhouses of other railroads the clearance was 12 1/2 to 15 inches.

The respondent relies on the numerous cases in which it has been held negligence to locate structures of various kinds so near the tracks of a railroad as to injure the crews of moving trains. This rule has been held as to spouts of water tanks, mail cranes, signal posts, and the like, and would apply to the case of a doorway so narrow as to endanger the safety of employés while on an engine. But it is not applicable to the present case. The crew of a train...