Soderman v. Troy Steel & Iron Co.

1. Appeal—Review—Evidence. In an action for injuries from a defective dump car on which plaintiff was employed in transporting material, the evidence being conflicting as to whether the car was defective, or whether it was left in an unsafe condition by fellow servants, a finding for plaintiff will not be disturbed. 3. Personal Injuries—Damages. One thousand dollars for injuries to a laborer 56 years old, in good health, is not excessive damages for a permanent injury rendering him practically unable to perform manual labor.

Appeal from circuit court, Rensselaer county. Action by Peter Soderman against the Troy Steel & Iron Company for personal injuries. Judgment in favor of plaintiff entered on a verdict for $1,000. Defendant appeals. The action was prosecuted for alleged negligence of the defendant in furnishing an alleged defective car, upon which the plaintiff was employed to work, in transporting slag from defendant’s steel works to a dump on defendant’s ground, where such slag was deposited! The plaintiff was a common laborer, and had been in the employ of the defendant as such for about 10 years, and appears to have been subject to the orders and directions of one Babcock, who was boss laborer on defendant’s works. On the 28th of August, 1888, the plaintiff, with other employes of the defendant, loaded several ears with this refuse material, and ran one train without accident to the dump, discharged the load, and backed up to the pit at defendant’s furnace, reloaded their train, and started again for the dump. The train was run at about the rate of three or four miles an hour. Before reaching the dump, the body of the car on which plaintiff was seated, without any interference by any of the ■employes, became unhooked from the truck, and dumped its contents, carrying the plaintiff with it, who fell under the loading of the car, and was injured. The car on which the plaintiff was employed was so constructed that the body rested upon the truck, and was attached to a center shaft, running lengthwise of the box, so that the shaft could be moved by a crank at one ■end. This shaft was attached to two rollers or wheels, one at each end, about .six inches in diameter, which supported the box, and aided in moving it. The rollers rested on cross bars running across the car on the truck. On this shaft, at its central part, under the car, is a pinion, or small notched wheel. This pinion is so placed as to engage with the rack, which is a flat strip of iron with teeth projecting above it, running transversely across the frame which .supports the car box. When this shaft, which is moved by a crank turned by hand, is set in motion, the teeth of the pinion engage with the toothed surface of the rack, and the box, by the aid of the rollers, is moved laterally until its center of gravity gets beyond the support, when the box dumps. There are also two chains connected on the car box with the truck, which prevent the box from passing beyond the point necessary to dump its load. The mode of fastening the car box to the truck is by means of two hooks, which are attached to the cross bar, which is immovably fixed to the truck upon the side of the truck opposite to that from which the car dumps. When the car box is in place the two hooks attached to this cross bar are hooked over the central shaft. These hooks are fixed by the operatives, and ■designed to fasten the box in its place. If the hooks are,not adjusted or placed upon the shaft, the box becomes insecure, and the jar incident to the moving of the train would be sufficient to set the car box moving laterally, and cause the dump. The evidence disclosed that it was in consequence of these hooks becoming detached that the car box slid laterally as the train was moving, and thus caused the accident. The contention on the part of the plaintiff is that this apparatus' was insecure, and that the construction of the car was in this regard genetically defective. There is some evidence in the case on the part of the plaintiff tending to show that one of these hooks had been slightly straightened, thus rendering it less secure than it would have been, if the hook had been as originally intended. While the witnesses on the part of the plaintiff and defendant all agree as to the general construction of this car, there is a marked difference in their testimony as to whether or not it was the best or most approved method of constructing cars for the purpose for which these cars were used, and there is some evidence tending to show that the defendants at this time were using cars for this purpose of a different construction. The controversy in this case turns largely upon the sufficiency of this method of construction of cars, and the condition of this particular car as to the hook which was intended to hold the body in place. The theory of the plaintiff was that this accident occurred by reason of the defect in the car, while the contention of the defendant is that the accident resulted from some negligence on the part of plaintiff’s coemployes in not adjusting the hook before the starting of the train; and this difference was sharply contested by the evidence on either side. There is no evidence of negligence by the plaintiff offered by the defendant which tended to produce the injury complained of.