Hudson v. Rome

• Decision Date: 22 March 1895
• Citation: 40 N.E. 8,145 N.Y. 408
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: HUDSON v. ROME, W. & O. R. CO.

145 N.Y. 408

40 N.E. 8

HUDSON

v.ROME, W. & O. R. CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 22, 1895.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, Fourth department.

Action by Lewis W. Hudson, administrator of the estate of Harry L. Hudson, deceased, against the Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburg Railroad Company. From a judgment of the general term (26 N. Y. Supp. 386) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

D. G. Griffin, for appellant.

John N. Carlisle, for respondent.

HAIGHT, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for causing the death of Harry L. Hudson, the plaintiff's intestate. Hudson was in the employ of the defendant engaged as a fireman on engine No. 103. George H. Grower was the engineer in charge. On the 8th day of October, 1890, at 1:45 p. m., they took the engine in question from the yard in Watertown, and started out with a freight train for Oswego. They took water at Watertown, Pierrepont Manor, and Richland. On arriving at Mexico, they stopped at the water column, to again take water. The engineer then left the engine in charge of Hudson, and went into the depot. A few minutes thereafter the crown sheet of the engine collapsed, allowing the steam to escape into the fire box, and blow out through the door thereof, inflicting injuries upon Hudson, from which he shortly thereafter died. An examination of the engine after the accident disclosed the fact that the crown sheet had been scorched throughout its entire length, covering an area of 32 inches at the front of the fire box, and gradually diminishing, until, at the back end, the scorched area was 16 inches in width. The scorched part was white, of a bluish cast, and perfectly clean, having no soot or other substance attached to it. The crown sheet had been convex, but had reversed its arch, and pressed down into the fire box a distance of 17 1/2 inches, so as to become concave. Prior to the accident, the crown sheet had been supported by numerous stay bolts, screwed into the plate, and riveted on the fire-box side. These bolts had drawn out, leaving holes in the sheet, through which the steam had escaped into the fire box. The sheet itself, after the collapse, was extended longitudinally from 10 to 14 inches, and the holes caused by the withdrawing of the stay bolts had become elongated. The engine was nearly new, of first-class construction, and in other respects was in perfect condition.

It is conceded by all parties that the accident occurred in consequence of the scorching of the crown plate. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the scorching had taken place at some previous time, and that the defendant was negligent in sending the engine out upon the road while it was in that condition. On behalf of the defendant it is claimed that the scorching took place at the time of, or just preceding, the accident. The question is thus presented as to when and where the scorching took place. The only evidence presented on behalf of the plaintiff bearing upon this question is that of the engineer in charge and the hostler in the yard at Watertown. The engineer testified that he kept the crown sheet covered with water throughout the entire trip, and that on arriving at Mexico it still had two full gauges, which would be about six inches, of water over the sheet. The hostler testified that he kept the engine watered while it stood in the yard at Watertown under his charge. From this evidence the jury was asked to find as a...