Massa v. Nippon Yusen Kaisha

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: POUND
• Citation: Massa v. Nippon Yusen Kaisha, 264 N.Y. 283, 190 N.E. 641 (N.Y. 1934)
• Decision Date: 22 May 1934
• Parties: Massa v. Nippon Yusen Kaisha

264 N.Y. 283

190 N.E. 641

MASSA

v.NIPPON YUSEN KAISHA.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 22, 1934.

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.

POUND, Chief Judge.

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....