Kranz v. Long Island R. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 October 1890 |
| Citation | 123 N.Y. 1,25 N.E. 206 |
| Parties | KRANZ v. LONG ISLAND R. CO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, general term, second department.
A. N. Weller, for appellant.
E. B. Hinsdale, for respondent.
We are of opinion that the nonsuit granted in this case was erroneous, and that the question of the defendant's negligence was improperly withheld from the jury. The plaintiff's intestate was a young man, about 18 years of age, who had entered the machine-shops of the defendant company to learn the trade and pursue that branch of labor. He was ordered to go to the depot at Bay Ridge, to clean, or aid in cleaning, certain waterpipes placed under-ground at that point. A trench was opened for that purpose by the sectionman and laborers, under his direction, some hours before the intestate began work upon the pipes. That was a necessary step to furnish him a suitable place and proper opportunity for the performance of his own duty. He entered the trench, and began to disconnect the pipes; and, while so engaged, the earth caved in upon him, and he died of suffocation.
The defendant owed to its servant the duty of providing a place reasonably safe for the work which he was directed to do. Those who opened the trench were performing the master's duty to the deceased in preparing a suitable place and opportunity for the labor of the intestate in discharge of his duty. The general term conceded so much, but held that the danger, if any, was as obvious to the servant as the master, and the former chose to take the risk. That proposition is incorrect as a legal conclusion from the proof, and is scarely defended on this appeal; but the nonsuit is sought to be sustained, upon the ground that they who opened the trench were fellow-servants of the intestate, engaged with him in a common enterprise, and whose negligence, if any, in not bracing or protecting the sides of the trench, was one of the risks which the deceased assumed. I think the decisions of this court are adverse to that view. The general question was very much discussed, and quite fully considered, in Slater v. Jewett, 85 N. Y. 61, and later applied to different facts in Pantzar v. Mining Co., 99 N. Y. 368 2 N. E. Rep. 24, and Benzing v. Steinway, 101 N. Y. 547, 5 N. E. Rep. 449. In these cases the duty of the master to exercise reasonable care in furnishing to the servant safe tools and applicances, competent co-servants, and a safe place in which to work, was fully recognized. When the master...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oelschlegel v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.
...American Steel B. Co., supra; Abel v. Butler-Ryan Co., supra; Benzing v. Steinway, 101 N.Y. 547; Galvin v. Mayor, 112 N.Y. 223; Kranz v. Long Island, 123 N.Y. 1; Pantzar v. Tilly, 99 N.Y. 368; Green Banta, 48 N.Y.S. 156; Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Herbert, 116 U.S. 642; Union Pacific Ry. Co......
-
Schaffner v. C.F. Massey Co.
...App. 544] 40 N. E. 1094;Lee v. Woolsey, 109 Pa. 124;Mulcairnes v. City of Janesville, 67 Wis. 24 [29 N. W. 565];Kranz v. Railroad Co., 123 N. Y. 1 [25 N. E. 206,20 Am. St. Rep. 716]. These questions of fact are settled in this case by the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming that of th......
-
Rogers v. Leyden
... ... master through other and competent servants employed by ... him." Kranz v. Long Island R. R. Co., ... 123 N.Y. 1, 25 N.E. 206. Many of the instructions given by ... the ... ...
-
Illinois Steel Co. v. Schymanowski
...(Ind. App.) 40 N. E. 1094; Lee v. Woolsey, 109 Pa. St. 124; Mulcairns v. City of Janesville, 67 Wis. 24, 29 N. W. 565;Kranz v. Railway Co., 123 N. Y. 1, 25 N. E. 206. These questions of fact are settled in this case by the judgment of the appellate court affirming that of the trial court. I......