Case Name: Anna Antonia De Maria, as Administratrix, etc., of Mike De Maria, Deceased, Respondent, v. New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-12-14
Citations: 180 A.D. 573
Docket Number: 
Parties: Anna Antonia De Maria, as Administratrix, etc., of Mike De Maria, Deceased, Respondent, v. New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 180
Pages: 573–579

Head Matter:
Anna Antonia De Maria, as Administratrix, etc., of Mike De Maria, Deceased, Respondent, v. New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.
Second Department,
December 14, 1917.
Railroads — negligence — action under Federal Employers’ Liability Act — erroneous charge — contributory negligence — appeal — erroneous instruction invited by defendant not ground for reversal.
Where, in an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act to recover for the death of an employee who was struck by an engine, the court properly charged that contributory negligence would not prevent any recovery, and then at the request of the defendant charged that if the deceased was a watchman at the time of the accident no recovery could be had, a verdict for $16,000 subsequently reduced one-third for contributory negligence should be affirmed.
Counsel cannot urge as reversible error an erroneous instruction to the jury induced by himself.
Thomas and Mills, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, New York Central Eailroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 6th day of February, 1917, upon the verdict of a jury for $10,666.67, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 7th day of March, 1917, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes, and also from said order as resettled by an order entered on the 17th day of March, 1917.
John F. Brennan, for the appellant.
Thomas J. O’ Neill [Leonard F. Fish with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Putnam, J.:
Plaintiff recovered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (35 U. S. Stat. at Large, 65, chap. 149, as amd. by 36 id. 291, chap. 143) for the death of the decedent, De Maria, an employee on defendant's tracks at North White Plains. During a snow storm decedent, with one Mucci, was cleaning out switch No. 37, on a north-bound track. After brushing out the snow, kerosene oil was poured in to be lighted so as to thaw out the switch. Mucci was attempting to light the oil with deceased stooping over him. It was about six-ten a. m. when daylight was beginning. A freight locomotive backing south on this north-bound track ran upon the men, killing De Maria, and injuring Mucci. Against defendant were charges of not having a watchman stationed to warn of approaching trains, and omission of lights and signals by the backing engine. Earlier in the night Sam Belmont had been a watchman with a whistle to warn the trackmen. There was an issue whether deceased had taken over this duty, and had been handed the whistle to act as watchman. Defendant had settled with Mucci for his injuries. On this trial plaintiff called Mucci, who was examined through an interpreter. His testimony, as interrupted by the explanations of the interpreter, objections and rulings, covers fifty-eight printed pages. There were inconsistencies and contradictions about this alleged handing over of the whistle to the deceased. Thus the jury had the issues of signals by the backing engine, and whether deceased had himself undertaken the duty to watch and warn Mucci.
At the end of a clear charge under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, counsel for defendant said: " I ask your Honor to charge that if this man when sent there was given a whistle, they cannot recover." The court: " Yes."
The jury rendered a sealed verdict in which they found plaintiff's total damage at $16,000, which they reduced one-third for deceased's contributory negligence.
Appellant contends that no recovery should be sustained under this instruction.
The majority of us, however, think that this request being erroneous under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (which the charge had clearly explained as not denying any recovery in case of contributory negligence) was obviously not followed by the jury. If defendant's counsel at the moment induced an erroneous instruction to the jury, he cannot afterwards urge what he had himself invited as reversible error. The jury is presumed to have taken the charge as a whole. (People v. Gilbert, 199 N. Y. 10, 26.) The special verdict removes all doubt. It stands on a finding based on the only substantial ground urged against plaintiff, which was the omissions of deceased as a watchman, for which the recovery has been properly lessened.
Therefore, the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
Jenks, P. J., and Blackmar, J., concurred; Thomas, J., read for reversal, with whom Mills, J., concurred.