Case ID: ny-st-rep_66/html/0347-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ehrlich, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael F. Conway, Resp’t, v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, App’lt.
    
      (New York City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed March 19, 1895.)
    
    Master and servant—Safe place.
    Where it appears that the defendant constructed and maintained a plank or board walk upon which to wheel freight from one float to another, which was not properly fastened, it is a question for the jury, in an action by an employe who was engaged in transferring freight from the pier to cars on such floats, to determine wether the defendant furnished a safe place for his servants to work.
    Appeal from a judgment, entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
    
      Ashbel Green and H. E. Kinney, for app’lt; W. E. Morris, for resp’t.
   Ehrlich, C. J.

The action is by the plaintiff, a freight handler in the employ of the defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him while engaged in transferring a cask of freight, weighing from 1,200 to 1,500 pounds, from the. pier to certain freight cars which were in process of loading on certain floats controlled and used by the defendant. It appears that the defendant constructed and maintained a plank or board walk upon which to wheel said freight from one float to another; that the float was not properly fastened; and the plaintiff, while assisting in transferring the cask in question, was injured by the giving way of the plank at one end, whereby the truck and cask were precipitated to one side, and against the plaintiff’s left leg, causing him severe injuries. There was no substantial dispute about the main facts in the case, and the real question narrowed itself down to one of law, as to whether the defendant was liable for the acts complained of. This on the record was a very close question, and must be made to depend in this case upon whether the master discharged his duty to the plaintiff by furnishing him a safe place in which to work. Rettig v. Transportation Co., 6 Misc. Rep. 328; 56 St. Rep. 235. The questions of negligence and of the absence of contributory negligence were clearly submitted to the jury, whose verdict was moderate in amount, and we do not feel disposed to disturb their finding. The judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.