Searles v. Manhattan Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 March 1886
• Citation: Searles v. Manhattan Ry Co., 101 N.Y. 661, 5 N.E. 66 (N.Y. 1886)
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: ERASTUS B. SEARLES, Respondent, v. MANHATTAN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

101 N.Y. 661

5 N.E. 66

SEARLES

v.MANHATTAN RY CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Filed March 2, 1886.

Edward S. Rapallo, for appellant.

H. Morrison, for respondent.

EARL, J.

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...