Legal Opinion

Arnold v. President, Managers & Co. of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 2, 1890PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme -Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made at the May term, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon an order nonsuiting plaintiff on trial. This action was brought by plaintiff, a brakeman in the employ of defendant in its yard at Schenectady, to recover -damages for the loss of an arm, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant.

Read the full summary

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme -Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made at the May term, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon an order nonsuiting plaintiff on trial. This action was brought by plaintiff, a brakeman in the employ of defendant in its yard at Schenectady, to recover -damages for the loss of an arm, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The question of contributory negligence is generally one for the jury. (Stackus v. N.…

1Opinion of the CourtFinch, J.

There was no evidence that the defendant company failed in the performance of any duty which it owed to servants. The plaintiff was injured in attempting to couple-two cars in the Schenectady yard, one of which had a broken draw-head, and the negligence averred is the presence of that-defect. But it is.no ground of liability of the company that, the draw-head was broken and the cars could not be coupled, in the ordinary way, for the duty of the plaintiff was to handle - defective as well as uninjured cars, and aid in taking the former* out of the trains and placing them upon the tracks where…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Goodrich v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1889

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Union Stock-Yards Co. v. GoodwinNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Chesapeake & O. R. v. HennesseyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
  3. Maltbie v. . BeldenNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  4. H. Koehler & Co. v. ReinheimerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
  5. Kaminski v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930

13 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