Legal Opinion

Bailey v. Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburg Railroad

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 3, 1893PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the. fourth judicial department, entered upon an order made February 3,1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Circuit and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. This action was brought to recover damages for injuries received by plaintiff through the alleged negligence of defendant while in its employ.

Read the full summary

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the. fourth judicial department, entered upon an order made February 3,1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Circuit and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. This action was brought to recover damages for injuries received by plaintiff through the alleged negligence of defendant while in its employ. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The defendant was negligent in not making a proper inspection at Norwood. (Kennedy v. Mayor,…

1Opinion of the Court

Andrews, Ch. J.

The failure of the defendant to perform its duty to use reasonable care in the inspection of the brake, the defect in which caused the injury to the plaintiff, is the gravamen of the action.

The plaintiff was nonsuited on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. We think the case should have been submitted to the jury. The evidence shows that the plaintiff was employed as brakeman on a freight train of the defendant, running from Norwood to Rome. On the day of the accident, after the train had been made up at Norwood ready to start, five…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. The Nord Deutscher Lloyd Steamship Co. v. IngebregstenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1894
  2. Woods v. Long Island RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
  3. Schoonmaker v. Pittsburgh Contracting Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
  4. Wilson v. New York Contracting Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
  5. Mahar v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API