Searles v. Manhattan Ry Co.
Decision Date | 02 March 1886 |
Citation | 101 N.Y. 661,5 N.E. 66 |
Parties | SEARLES v. MANHATTAN RY CO. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Edward S. Rapallo, for appellant.
H. Morrison, for respondent.
There was sufficient evidence to show that the plaintiff's eye was injured by a cinder lodged therein; that the cinder came from a locomotive upon defendant's railways; and that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence. But there was an utter failure of evidence to show that the accident occurred from any fault, negligence, or unskillfulness on the part of the defendant. The defendant had the right to operate its railway over the street by steam, and to generate steam by the use of coal, and any damage necessarily caused by the careful and skillful exercise of its lawful rights could impose no obligation upon it. To maintain his action, therefore, the plaintiff was bound to give evidence legitimately tending to show that the damage to his eye was caused in consequence of some negligence or unskillfulness chargeable to the defendant.
The undisputed evidence shows that all the appliances used upon defendant's locomotives to prevent the escape of sparks and cinders were skillfully made, and were the best known. There was no evidence that any of such appliances were defective or out of order. On the contrary the proof tended to show that they were in order. The mere proof of the escape of cinders was not sufficient, as the evidence showed that their escape could not be avoided and was inevitable. According to the proof, cinders from one of defendant's locomotives could come only from the smoke-stack or ash-pan. There is no claim that the defendant is liable for this accident if the cinder came from the smoke-stack; but the claim is that it came from the ash-pan because it was out of repair. But there was no evidence that the ash-pan was out of repair, or that the cinder came from it. When the fact is that the damages claimed in an action were occasioned by one of two causes, for one of which the defendant is responsible, and for the other of which it is not responsible, the plaintiff must fail if his evidence does not show that the damages were produced by the former cause, and he must fail, also, if it is just as probable that they were caused by the one as by the other, as the plaintiff is bound to make out his case by the preponderance of evidence. The jury must not be left to mere conjecture; and a bare possibility that the damages were caused in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Antler v. Cox
... ... Lewinn v. Murphy, 63 Wash. 356, Ann. Cas. 1912D, ... 433, 115 P. 740; Pearson v. Northern P. R. Co., 72 ... Wash. 8, 129 P. 573; Searles v. Manhattan Ry. Co., ... 101 N.Y. 661, 5 N.E. 66; Patton v. Texas & P. R ... Co., 179 U.S. 658, 21 S.Ct. 275, 45 L.Ed. 361; ... Taylor v. City ... ...
-
Lewis v. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co.
...Co. v. Evans, 53 Pa. St. 253; Railroad Co. v. Schertle, 97 Pa. St. 450; Stringert v. Ross, 179 Pa. 614, 36 A. 345; Searles v. Manhattan Railway Co., 101 N.Y. 661; Armstrong v. Town of Cosmopolis, 72 P. 1039, Wash. 110; Hansen v. Seattle Lumber Co., 31 Wash. 608, 72 P. 457; Stratton v. C. H.......
-
Smart v. Kansas City
...should not be considered by the jury in measuring her damages. Smith v. First Nat. Bank, 99 Mass. 605, 97 Am. Dec. 59; Searles v. Ry. Co., 101 N. Y. 661, 5 N. E. 66. 7. The third instruction given for plaintiff is assailed by defendant because the petition alleges that the amputation of pla......
-
Kunkel v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company
... ... is not evidence. Marvin et al. v. Chicago M. & St. P ... Ry., 47 N.W. 1123; Megow v. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry ... Co., 36 N.W. 1099; Searles v. Manhattan Ry ... Co., 101 N.Y. 661; 5 N.E. 66; Grant v. Penn. & N.Y ... Canal & Ry. Co., 133 N.Y. 657; 31 N.E. 220; Taylor ... v. City of ... ...