Lang v. New York Cent. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1920 |
| Citation | 125 N.E. 681,227 N.Y. 507 |
| Parties | LANG v. NEW YORK CENT. R. CO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Anna E. Lang, as administratrix, etc., against the New York Central Railroad Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (175 N. Y. Supp. 908) affirming a judgment of the Trial Term (104 Misc. Rep. 634,172 N. Y. Supp. 196), entered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Judgments of Trial Term and of Appellate Division reversed, and complaint dismissed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth department.
Maurice C. Spratt, of Buffalo, for appellant.
Hamilton Ward, of Buffalo, for respondent.
[1] Where disregard of the Safety Appliance Act (U. S. Comp. St. § 8605 et seq.) causes loss to one of the class for whose special benefit it was enacted, his right to recover damages is implied. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U. S. 33, 36 Sup. Ct. 482, 60 L. Ed. 874. Not so as to others.
In St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co. v. Conarty, 238 U. S. 243, 35 Sup. Ct. 785, 59 L. Ed. 1290, a switch engine collided with a freight car having no coupler or drawbar. The switch engine was not to handle this car, but was on its way to a point some distance beyond it. Conarty, standing on the footboard of the engine, was killed by the collision. There was evidence that had the coupler and drawbar been present the engine and the car would have been held so far apart as to have prevented the injury.
The Supreme Court said that section 2 of the act (U. S. Comp. St. §8606) was intended to provide against the risk for coupling and uncoupling and to obviate the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars. It was not intended to provide a place of safety between colliding cars. Therefore, when a collision was not the proximate result of the violation of these regulations, where there was no endeavor to couple or uncouple a car or to handle it in any way, there can be no recovery under the act. The absence of a coupler and drawbar was not a breach of duty toward a servant in that situation.
If, however, a collision was proximately caused by the failure of the railroad to obey the statute, it was not intended to hold that only those servants actually engaged in coupling or uncoupling cars could recover for the resulting injuries. Any servant so injured equally comes within the protection of the statute. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Layton, 243 U. S. 617, 37 Sup. Ct. 456, 61 L. Ed. 931; Minn. & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Gotschall, 244 U. S. 66, 37 Sup. Ct. 598, 61 L. Ed. 995.
[2] In the case before us the defendant was engaged in interstate commerce. A car without drawbar or coupler was standing on the siding. The plaintiff's intestate was a brakeman, and was riding on a second car kicked upon the same siding. A collision occurred, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peters v. Wabash Ry. Co.
...Co. v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243, 59 L. Ed. 1290, 35 Sup. Ct. 785; Lang v. Ry. Co., 255 U.S. 455, 65 L. Ed. 729, 41 Sup. Ct. 381 (affirming 227 N.Y. 507); Davis v. Hand, 290 Fed. 73 (certiorari denied, 263 U.S. 705); Phillips v. Railroad Co., 283 Fed. 381 (certiorari denied, 260 U.S. 731); McCa......
-
Peters v. Wabash Ry. Co.
...S. F. Ry. Co. v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243, 59 L.Ed. 1290, 35 S.Ct. 785; Lang v. Ry. Co., 255 U.S. 455, 65 L.Ed. 729, 41 S.Ct. 381 (affirming 227 N.Y. 507); Davis v. Hand, 290 F. 73 (certiorari denied, 263 U.S. 705); Phillips v. Railroad Co., 283 F. 381 (certiorari denied, 260 U.S. 731); McCalm......
-
Pryor v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co.
...recover. In the Lang Case, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals of New York, 227 N.Y. 507, 125 N.E. 681, reversing a judgment in favor the employee for damages in the trial court and an affirmance of that judgment by an Appellate Divisi......
-
De Sessa v. City of White Plains
...N.E. 400, 401; DiCaprio v. New York Central Railroad Co., 231 N.Y. 94, 97, 131 N.E. 746, 747, 16 A.L.R. 940; Lang v. New York Central Railroad Co., 227 N.Y. 507, 125 N.E. 681). Here the plaintiff was obviously within the class of persons intended to be protected by the statutes; and obvious......