TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McNeil v. New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad

McNEIL v. NEW YORK, L. E. & W. R. CO.

McNeil v. N.Y., Lake Erie & Western R.R., 24 N.Y.S. 616 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1893)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
July 28, 1893
Judges
Barnard
Citations
24 N.Y.S. 61678 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2454 N.Y. St. Rep. 20171 Hun 24
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Master and Servant—Assumption op Risk. A brakeman who has been more than a year in the employ of a railroad company assumes the risk incident to the fact that some of the guard rails in the company’s switch yards are not blocked, so as to prevent an employe’s foot from being caught between the guard rail and the main rail; and the company is not liable for his death, caused by failure to block such guard rails. Appel v. Railroad Go., 19 N. E. Rep. 93, 111 N. Y. 550, followed.
Summary
Appeal from circuit court, Orange county. Action by James McNeil, as administrator of the estate of Arthur McNeil, deceased, against the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company, to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate, caused by defendant’s negligence while he was in its employ as a brakeman, in which position he had been engaged more than a year. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Barnard

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

BARNARD, P. J.

Arthur McNeil, on the 2d of December, 1888, was killed by being run over by the moving cars of defendant. The deceased was a brakeman in the employ of defendant, and the accident to him happened while he was engaged in switching cars. The deceased stepped between moving cars to disconnect them, and his foot was caught between the guard rail and the main rail. . The negligence claimed on the part of defendant is that the company did not block the guard rail, which is done by placing in the open space between the two rails something which would prevent the foot of an employe from being caught between the two rails. The rule is that an employe assumes the risk of the employment. Kern v. Refining Co., 125 N. Y. 50 , 25 N. E. Rep. 1071; Davidson v. Cornell, 132 N. Y. 228 , 30 N. E. Rep. 573. The master is not bound to furnish the best ldnd of appliances, or to give an extreme character to the structure, so as to insure safety. The measure of duty is reasonable care. The evidence tended to show that some guard rails were blocked, and some not. The case cannot be distinguished from the case of Appel v. Railroad Co., 111 N. Y. 550 , 19 N. E. Rep. 93. The nonsuit was therefore right, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1898: 118982026peak 1898 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wabash Railroad v. Ray51 N.E. 920 (Ind. 1898)

Most recent

  1. Wabash Railroad v. Ray51 N.E. 920 (Ind. 1898)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Davidson v. Cornell, 30 N.E. 573 (N.Y. 1892) 86
Appel v. Buffalo, N.Y. & Philadelphia Ry. Co., 19 N.E. 93 (N.Y. 1888) 40
Kern v. DeCastro & Donner Sugar Ref. Co., 25 N.E. 1071 (N.Y. 1890) 25

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list