Burckle v. New-York Dry-Dock Co.
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an action on the case for injury sustained by a vessel belonging to the plaintifis, while on a rail-way, or inclined plane belonging to the defendants, for repairs. The declaration contained two counts.
Read the full summary
This was an action on the case for injury sustained by a vessel belonging to the plaintifis, while on a rail-way, or inclined plane belonging to the defendants, for repairs. The declaration contained two counts. The first set forth that the plaintiffs, on the first day of May, 1827, were the owners of a brig called the Eagle, and that the defendants were the owners of a certain dry-dock or rail-way, “ intended and held out by them “ for the receiving and repairing of ships and vessels, which they “ were bound to keep in good order and repair, and in a state and “ condition suited to the…
1Opinion of the Court
Hoffman J.
It appears from the evidence presented by the case, that when fire is about to be applied to a ship’s bottom, water and brooms are usually provided, to guard against accidents; and that with these precautions a vessel may be safely graved. The plaintiffs, although warned that there would be hazard, unless such care was taken, having neglected all the usual precautions, cannot found an action for damages upon their own negligence.
The rule of the civil law, I apprehend, does not sustain the counsel for the plaintiffs in the position he has taken ; because from the testimony it clearly…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hartfield v. RoperNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Munger v. . Tonawanda Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Hart v. HudsonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
- Cook v. President of the New York Floating Dry Dock Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1857
- McCool v. Galena & Chicago Union RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864