Saxton v. Delaware & Hudson Co.
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtLehman, J.
The plaintiff, a trainman employed by the defendant, was injured through the parting of a coupler between two cars on a freight train. That was due to a defective drawbar which held the coupler in place. The jury found upon sufficient evidence that the accident was due to the negligence of the defendant, but the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, because of error in the charge to the jury, if .a finding of negligence is necessary to sustain a recovery.
The complaint alleges that the train was operated in violation of the Safety Applicance Act of the United States. (Mason’s U.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. GotschallSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. LaytonSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
3Cited by7 opinions
- O'Donnell v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Ross v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
- Devaney v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1933
- Crozier v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1952
- Michalek v. United States Gypsum Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.