Case Name: VAN HAAREN v. LONG ISLAND R. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-12-30
Citations: 120 N.Y.S. 157
Docket Number: 
Parties: VAN HAAREN v. LONG ISLAND R. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 120
Pages: 157–160

Head Matter:
VAN HAAREN v. LONG ISLAND R. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
December 30, 1909.)
Master and Servant (§ 185 )—Injuries to Servant—Brakehen .
Where the middle brakeman of a freight train was injured by being thrown therefrom as he was attempting to board the train at his post of duty, the conductor was not negligent in failing to see that all the employes were aboard before starting the train.
[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 185. ]
Burr and Rich, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Nassau County.
Action by Peter H. Van Haaren against the Long Island Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, it appeals. Reversed.
Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, BURR, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.
W. C. Beecher, for appellant.
Martin T. Mantón, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number In Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
MILLER, J.
I think that this judgment should be reversed, for errors of the trial court in refusing to charge as requested by the defendant. A brief statement to show the disputed questions of fact is necessary.
The plaintiff alleged in a complaint, verified by his guardian ad litem, that he was in the employ of the defendant as a brakeman and switchman, and that, while attempting to board his train upon returning to it after turning a switch, it was negligently started, and he was thrown under the wheels. His story upon the trial, briefly stated, was that his train was due to start for its day's work from< Holban yard, near Jamaica, at 5 o'clock in the morning; that on the morning of May 18, 1907, he reported for work and was directed by the conductor to go with 'a fellow brakeman to get some fuses, torches, and oil; that, while away from the train to obey that instruction, it left; that he and his fellow workman then took a train for Valley Stream, and walked from there to Far Rockaway, a distance of eight or nine miles, where he arrived between 4 and 4:30 in the afternoon, found his train, and reported to the conductor, who told him to go to work. I quote from his testimony:
"He told me to go back on my train. ' The train was then standing still. I spent about 20 to 25 minutes there talking with the conductor, and then walked back to the middle of the train; I should judge 10 or 15 cars back from the engine. Q. What did you do when you got there? A. The conductor «says, 'All aboard!' I put my left foot on the step, put my hand on the handle, and I was just getting on. The conductor gave him the signal. The train gave a lurch, and threw me off underneath the wheel, and T got my foot amputated."
The defendant's, version of the occurrence, supported by the testimony of four witnesses, is that the train left Holban yard without the plaintiff, owing to the latter's fault in not being at his post; that his place had been supplied by another brakeman, who had joined the crew at Far Rockaway; and that he had not been seen by the conductor or the rest of the- crew after leaving Holban yard until the accident occurred, which resulted from his attempting to board the train while it was in motion.
The defendant excepted to the refusal of the trial court to charge each of the following requests:
"I ask your honor to charge, if the conductor directed the plaintiff to resume his place and waited a reasonable length of time after such direction, he would then be justified in starting his train."
"I ask your honor to charge that the conductor's duty in this case did not require him to watch each trainman to see if he had gone aboard before starting his train:"
Even upon the plaintiff's version of the occurrence, the jury were at liberty to find that the conductor was not negligent. The plaintiff was a middle brakeman. His work required him to be at the middle of the train. Brakemen have to be alert and look out for themselves. According to his own account the plaintiff had nothing to do but to take his place on the train, and the conductor was not required to watch his movements. The refusal to charge as requested could only be justified on the ground that the plaintiff's story, if believed, required a verdict in his favor; whereas, the jury were at liberty to find the conductor free from negligence, even upon the plaintiff's version of the accident. It is quite evident that the plaintiff loitered about after he was told to go to'work, just as he had been loitering during the day. The judgment and order should be reversed.
Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted; costs to abide the event.
WOODWARD and JENKS, JJ., concur.