Case Name: Finton Kelley, as Administrator, etc., of George W. Kelley, Deceased, Respondent, v. Jefferson Power Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-11-20
Citations: 153 A.D. 610
Docket Number: 
Parties: Finton Kelley, as Administrator, etc., of George W. Kelley, Deceased, Respondent, v. Jefferson Power Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 153
Pages: 610–616

Head Matter:
Finton Kelley, as Administrator, etc., of George W. Kelley, Deceased, Respondent, v. Jefferson Power Company, Appellant.
Fourth Department,
November 20, 1912.
Master and servant — negligence — death of acid maker from fall of tank—erroneous charge.
In an action to recover for the death of plaintiff’s son it appeared that they were both employed by the defendant as acid makers, the father having the night shift and the son the day shift. When the plaintiff left on the morning of the accident he told his son that the acid tank lacked five feet of being full.. The son then went to work and pumped acid into the tank for two or three hours, when it fell, killing him. The defendant’s foreman testified that he told the deceased hot to fill the tank within three feet of the top, but there was nothing to suggest that the tank was in danger of giving way if filled to a point beyond three feet of the top.
Held, that it was error to charge that the plaintiff could not recover if the deceased received instructions from the defendant’s foreman to not fill the tank to within three feet of the top and that in violation of such instructions he filled it to within eight or teh inches of the top. and that was the cause or contributed to the cause of the accident or the injury.
An order setting aside a verdict for the defendant and granting anew trial should be affirmed.
McLennan, P. J., and Lambert, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, the Jefferson Power Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Jefferson Trial Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Jefferson on the 1st day of May, 1911, as resettled and amended by an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 20th day of May, 1911, vacating and setting aside the verdict of a jury in favor of the defendant and granting a new trial.
The action was commenced on the 11th day of January, 1911, to recover damages resulting from the death of plaintiff’s intestate, alleged to have been caused solely through the negligence of the defendant. The defendant by its answer denied any actionable negligence on its part, alleged that plaintiff’s intestate was guilty of contributory negligence and that he had assumed the risks of the employment. The defendant also alleged that before the commencement of the action the plaintiff duly settled with and discharged the defendant from all further liability in the premises.
N. F. Breen, for the appellant.
Burton B. Parsons, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Kruse, J.:
I am not inclined to disagree with the presiding justice as to the correctness of the first request, relating to the negligence of the defendant, and what he says upon that subject. I think, however, that the second request charged was erroneous. Even if thé deceased had received the instructions not to fill the tank to within three feet of the top, and he in violation of these instructions filled it to within eight or ten inches of the top, and that was the cause or the contributing cause of the accident, I think the plaintiff might still be entitled to recover, because he may have done so unconsciously and without any negligence or want of care upon his part.
' The only way the person whose duty it was to pump the acid into the tank could tell absolutely how full it was, was by going to the top of the roof where the tank was located, and measure or examine the tank. The pump was in the building below. It was not expected that the workman would be constantly at the tank to watch and see how full it was. His duties required him to be elsewhere. It was necessarily a matter of judgment with him as to how full the tank would be from time to time, as he was pumping the acid into the tank.
•Furthermore, there is nothing contained in the instructions which would necessarily suggest to him that the tank was weak and was in danger of giving way if it was filled to a point beyond three feet of the. top. Indeed, the evidence seems to indicate that the only purpose of giving the instructions was to keep the tank from overflowing, which it did occasionally.
The charge, as requested by the defendant and as made by the judge, left out of consideration entirely the question of the" negligence of the deceased.
I think the order setting aside the verdict should be affirmed, with costs.
All concurred, except McLennan, Pi J., and Lambert, J., who dissented in an opinion by McLennan, P. J.