Eagen v. . Buffalo Union Terminal R.R. Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 30, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict arid an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The defendant was not liable for the negligent acts, if any, of Donahue, and the charge upon this point was erroneous.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 30, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict arid an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The defendant was not liable for the negligent acts, if any, of Donahue, and the charge upon this point was erroneous. (Hallock v. N. Y., O. & W. R. R. Co., 197 N. Y. 450.) Kelley, in physical control of the engine, and Donahue, in physical control of a signal, were…
1Opinion of the CourtChase, J.
Plaintiff’s intestate was injured while employed as the conductor of a train used, among other things, in transporting molten slag or dross from the furnaces of the Buffalo Union Eurnace Company to a place where the slag was deposited called “ the dump.” The train in use at the time the intestate was injured consisted of an engine to which was attached in front a ñat car, a side dump car known as a “Weimar kettle” and an end dump car known as a “Hartman kettle” in the order named. The crew consisted of four persons, an engineer a fireman, the intestate, who was the conductor and the person in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hallock v. New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1910
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hildebrant v. Lehigh Valley RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913