Francey v. . Rutland R.R. Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered June 2, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The maxim res vpsa loquitur is not applicable to an explosion which might have been caused either by a defect in the boiler or by plaintiff’s improper management of it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered June 2, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The maxim res vpsa loquitur is not applicable to an explosion which might have been caused either by a defect in the boiler or by plaintiff’s improper management of it. (Francey v. Rutland R. R. Co., 167 App. Div. 491; Grant v. P. & N. Y. C. Co., 133 N. Y. 657; Searles v. Manhattan Co., 101 N. Y. 661; Taylor v. City…
1Opinion of the CourtMcLaughlin, J.
The plaintiff was employed by defendant as a locomotive engineer and on the 25th of March, 1911, while running the locomotive was injured by an explosion. The fireman was also injured. After the accident an examination was made which disclosed its probable cause. One of the flues in the boiler had been forced out of its place in the flue sheet, thus leaving an opening through which boiling water and steam were admitted into the fire pot. This action was subsequently brought, as was one by the fireman, to recover damages for the injuries sustained. The action brought by the fireman was first…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Griffen v. . ManiceNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Searles v. . Manhattan Railway CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Ruback v. . McCleary, Wallin CrouseNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Marceau v. Rutland Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1914
- Grant v. . Pennsylvania and New York Canal and Rd. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- May Department Stores Co. v. BellCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
- Central R. v. PelusoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- Cantley v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1944
- Phillips v. BriggsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1932
- Dierks Lumber & Coal Co. v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.