Sisco v. Lehigh & H.R. Ry. Co

• Decision Date: 12 March 1895
• Citation: 39 N.E. 958,145 N.Y. 296
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: SISCO v. LEHIGH & H. R. RY. CO.

145 N.Y. 296

39 N.E. 958

SISCO

v.LEHIGH & H. R. RY. CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 12, 1895.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, Second department.

Action by Eugene Sisco against the Lehigh & Hudson River Railway Company for personal injuries. On the death of plaintiff the case was continued in the name of his administrator, Nellie Sisco. From a judgment of the general term (27 N. Y. Supp. 671) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Isaac H. Maynard, for appellant.

John W. Lyon, for respondent.

ANDREWS, C. J.

The original plaintiff, Eugene Sisco, on the 18th day of April, 1890, in the performance of his duty as brakeman on a moving freight train of the defendant, near Monroe station, was climbing up a ladder on the outside of a box car to set a brake, and while on the ladder his head came into collision with the stationary arm of a mail crane, which had been erected by the defendant at that point, March 31, 1890, pursuant to the directions of the United States mail authorities. He was seriously injured, and brought this action in his lifetime against the defendant to recover damages for the injury, and in his complaint, among other things, he specified as a ground of liability the want of proper care on the part of the defendant in maintaining the obstruction by which he was injured in ‘such close proximity to its said railroad.’ The defendant put the allegations of the complaint in issue, and the case was tried before a jury, who awarded $8,000 damages. The general term affirmed the judgment entered on the verdict, and from the judgment of affirmance this appeal is taken. The original plaintiff has died since the appeal, and his administratrix has been substituted as plaintiff in the action

The trial judge, upon the issue of the defendant's negligence, submitted to the jury two questions: First, whether it was negligent in placing the mail crane too near the side track of the railroad; or, second, in failing to give reasonable warning to its employés of its presence, so that they might guard against the danger; and instructed them, in substance, that if they found against the defendant on either of these questions, the plaintiff, in the absence of contributory negligence, would be entitled to a verdict. It is urged on the part of the appellant that the court erred in submitting to the jury the question whether the defendant was negligent in putting the mail crane so close to the railroad. If this point is well taken, it will be unnecessary to consider the question whether negligence could be imputed to the defendant by reason of its failure to notify its employés of the erection of the crane, it having been erected only a short time before the injury in question. The jury found a general verdict, and, as it may have proceeded exclusively upon the ground of a negligent location of the crane, if that question ought not to have gone to the jury, the exception to its submission requires a reversal of the judgment.

The mail crane is an appliance to facilitate the taking into a mail car of mail bags when the car is in motion. The defendant erected two on the line of its railroad in 1886, which have been in use since that time, identical in construction, and in relative location to the track, as the one in question. The structure consists of an upright post 11 feet in height above the ground, and standing 7 feet 6 inches from the nearest rail, with a movable arm in the middle, and a stationary arm at the top, 3 feet 6 inches long, extending towards the track. When a car is...