Case Name: Catharine Areson, as Administratrix, etc., App'lt, v. The Long Island R. R. Co., Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1887-07-01
Citations: 10 N.Y. St. Rep. 331
Docket Number: 
Parties: Catharine Areson, as Administratrix, etc., App'lt, v. The Long Island R. R. Co., Resp't.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 10
Pages: 331–333

Head Matter:
Catharine Areson, as Administratrix, etc., App'lt, v. The Long Island R. R. Co., Resp't.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed July 1, 1887.)
IStgligence—Railroad—Question of fact.
A locomotive of defendant company, while hauling a train, kept on the main track, at a certain station, but the train itself went off on a switch and pulled the locomotive so that it was overthrown; the deceased, who was the engineer, was killed. Held, that the happening of the accident, being one which does not occur in the ordinary course of things, cast upon the defendant the burden of explaining the accident, and that the case should have gone to the jury. Following Durkin v. Sharp, 88 If. Y., 325. Dvkman, J., dissenting.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon an order of the Queens county circuit court dismissing the complaint upon the merits.
Thomas F. Donnelly, for app’lt; Hinsdale & Sprague, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The circumstances surrounding this accident are very peculiar. The locomotive, while hauling the train, kept on the main track at Bethpage station, but the train itself went off on a switch and pulled with it the locomotive so that it was overthrown. The deceased was the engineer and was killed. The accident was one which did not happen in the ordinary course of things, and under the duty which is put upon the defendant it was to furnish safe appliances and to keep the same in order, to avoid liability for damages to an employee in consequence of the neglect so todo Under the case of Durkin v. Sharp, (88 N. Y., 225), the case should have gone to the jury. The happening of the accident cast upon the defendant the burden of explaining the accident according to that case. It is the theqry of the defendant that some one had tampered with the switch. The plaintiff claimed that the switch was improperly made or was out of order. Seybolt v. N. Y. and Erie R. R., 95 N Y., 565.
Evidence offered by plaintiff tending to show that the switch as put in was bad in principle, was improperly rejected. Upon cross-examination the defendant was permitted to show that the same switch continued in use, and proof offered by plaintiff tending to show that the switch was not the same but had a new principle of blocking it, was improperly rejected. The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted costs to abide event.
Pratt, J., concurs.