Hawley v. . Northern Central Railway Co.
New York Court of Appeals
■ Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict. (Reported below, 17 Hun, 115.) The nature of the .action and the facts are set forth sufficiently in the opinion.
Read the full summary
■ Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict. (Reported below, 17 Hun, 115.) The nature of the .action and the facts are set forth sufficiently in the opinion. If the plaintiff knew that the track was so badly out of repair that it was dangerous to run over it, by continuing in the employment after such knowledge he assumed the risk, and the corporation is not liable for the injury. ( Wright v. New York, C. R. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 562, 566; Lanning v. New York C. R. R. Co., 49…
1Opinion of the CourtEarl, J.
The plaintiff was a locomotive engineer in the employment of the defendant, and was injured by the overturning of his engine in consequence of the bad condition of defendant’s road. This action was brought to recover for the injuries thus sustained, and a recovery was had. The defendant now seeks a reversal of plaintiff’s judgment upon the sole ground of his contributory negligence; and the claim is, that he should have been nonsuited on that ground.
The learned counsel for the defendant contends that the undisputed evidence showed that the plaintiff knew of the bad and dangerous condition of…
2Cited by46 opinions
- Huhn v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Sweeney v. . Berlin and Jones Envelope Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Rogers v. LeydenIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
- Rase v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Hamilton v. Rich Hill Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.