Case Name: AINSWORTH v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-05-08
Citations: 135 N.Y.S. 474
Docket Number: 
Parties: AINSWORTH v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 135
Pages: 474–477

Head Matter:
AINSWORTH v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
May 8, 1912.)
1. Master and Servant (§ 278*)—Death of Servant—Action for—Evidence.
In an action for the death of a railroad employs, evidence held sufficient to go to the jury that the death was caused by the negligence of the defendant in failing to provide a safe place to work.
[Ed. Note.—Eor other eases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 954, 956-958, 960-969, 971, 972, 977; Dec. Dig. § 278.*]
2. Master and Servant (§ 278*)—Death of Servant—Negligence of Master.
Where a railroad company was negligent in failing to provide a safe place for its servant to work whereby he tripped, fell onto its tracks, and was killed, a general showing of the improper conditions negligently maintained which caused his death will support an action therefor, though the particular agency which caused him to trip cannot he shown.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 954, 956-958, 960-969, 971, 972; Dec. Dig. § 278.*]
Smith, P. J., and Lyon, J., dissenting.
-*For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
Appeal from Trial Term, Albany County.
Action by Effie M. Ainsworth, as administratrix, etc., against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. From a judgment upon the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint at the close of her evidence, she appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, HOUGHTON, BETTS, and LYON, JJ.
Richard! O. Bassett, of Albany, for appellant.
Visscher, Whalen & Austin, of Albany, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
From the evidence the jury might have found that the speed limit in the yard was six miles per hour, and that the car causing the intestate's death was proceeding at an excessive speed, that the switch stand was not lighted, and that there were knuckles and other obstructions in the six foot. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove whether the intestate tripped over a part of the switch stand, the rod, or obstructions in the six foot. It is enough, if it appears, that there were obstructions, and that by reason of the excessive speed the failure to light the switch stand, and the other conditions existing, the intestate's death was caused by the negligence of the defendant. The judgment should therefore be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.