Massa v. Nippon Yusen Kaisha
| Decision Date | 22 May 1934 |
| Citation | 190 N.E. 641,264 N.Y. 283 |
| Parties | MASSA v. NIPPON YUSEN KAISHA. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Antonio Massa against Nippon Yusen Kaisha. From a judgment of the Appellate Division, entered February 5, 1934, (240 App. Div. 1029, 268 N. Y. S. 997), affirming a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered upon a verdict, the defendant appeals.
Judgments modified by granting a new trial.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
George J. Stacy and Jame J. Mahoney, both of New York City, for appellant.
David M. Fink and Jacquin Frank, both of New York City, for respondent.
Plaintiff was working, not for defendant, but for a stevedoring contractor, in loading drums of oil on defendant's steamship. The stevedore's men had been working for three days when an accident happened. A part of the rigging used in loading the drums fell and struck plaintiff. No negligence on the part of defendant was shown. The hoist rigging was in the custody and control of the stevedoring company. The judge charged the jury: ‘The happening of the accident creates a presumption that the defendant did not have a safe appliance.’ In other words, the case was presented as being governed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur.
The first item of proof necessary to bring this rule into action is that the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant. Breen v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 109 N. Y. 297, 300,16 N. E. 60,4 Am. St. Rep. 450. That item is lacking here. There is no presumption that the defendant was lacking in proper care in furnishing proper appliances when the accident might have happened through the carelessness of some member of the stevedore's gang. The burden of proving freedom from negligence was not cast on defendant merely because it furnished the rigging. The rigging might have been in good condition and the stevedore's workmen might have caused the accident by careless handling. The burden was not on the defendant to explain why the rigging fell. The rigging was not under the control of the defendant when the accident happened.
The judgments should be modified by granting a new trial, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Judgment accordingly.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. State
...289 N.Y. 293, 45 N.E.2d 450 (1942); Foltis, Inc. v. City of New York, 287 N.Y. 108, 38 N.E.2d 455 (1941), Supra; Massa v. Nippon Yusen Kaisha, 264 N.Y. 283, 190 N.E. 641 (1934). The doctrine means merely that the facts of the occurrence permit the inference of negligence, not that they comp......
-
De Falco v. Long Island College Hospital
...was not a Res ipsa loquitur event. Cf Foltis, Inc. v. City of New York, 287 N.Y. 108, 116, 38 N.E.2d 455, 460, Massa v. Nippon Yusen Kaisha, 264 N.Y. 283, 190 N.E. 641. The thing could not speak for itself, as did the circumstances in the typical Res ipsa loquitur cases of Griffin v. Norman......
-
Boston & Maine RR v. Jesionowski
...1928, 24 F.2d 671, 673, 59 A.L.R. 461; Lynch v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R., 1936, 294 Mass. 152, 200 N.E. 877; Massa v. Nippon Yusen Kaisha, 1934, 264 N.Y. 283, 190 N.E. 641; Texas & P. Coal Co. v. Kowsikowsiki, 1910, 103 Tex. 173, 125 S.W. The judgment of the District Court is reversed and......
- Heating & Plumbing Finance Corp. v. Friedman