Case Name: Ellen A. Course, as Administratrix, etc., of William A. Course, Deceased, App'lt, v. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Co., Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-06-25
Citations: 17 N.Y. St. Rep. 715
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ellen A. Course, as Administratrix, etc., of William A. Course, Deceased, App’lt, v. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Co., Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 17
Pages: 715–717

Head Matter:
Ellen A. Course, as Administratrix, etc., of William A. Course, Deceased, App’lt, v. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Co., Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed June 25, 1888.)
Negligence—Railroad—Brakeman—What risks he assumes—Where COMPANY NOT LIABLE.
On the trial of an’action for damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate, which was alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence, it appeared that a train of the defendant company, on which deceased was brakeman, pulled apart. The deceased was engaged in repairing the defect upon the portion of the train which was stationary, and while so engaged the engine and forward part of the train was driven back upon him by the engineer and he was killed. Held, that the defendant was not liable; that the blame was to be solely attributed to the engineer, who backed the train without due care; that the risk of attaching the train in its disabled condition was one of the risks of the employment. Dykman, J., dissenting. Holding that the case should have gone to the jury.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon an order dismissing the complaint on the merits granted at the Orange county circuit.
Lewis E. Carr, for resp’t; L. J. & J. W. Lyon, for app’lt.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The injury sustained by the plaintiff's intestate, which caused his death, was not to be attributed to the defendant. The general rule is that an employee assumes the risk of the employment and that he has no right of action which is based solely upon the negligence of a co-employee. In the present case a train pulled apart. Assuming that the separation was due to a defective appliance unknown to deceased, the injury did not result from it. The deceased was engaged in repairing the defect upon the portion of the train which was stationary, and while the deceased was engaged in remedying the defect the engine and forward part of the train was driven back upon, him by an engineer, and he was killed. So far as can be seen from the evidence, the blame is to be solely attributed to_ the engineer who backed his part of the train upon him without due care. The accident must be established to be the act of the company, and this is not made out by proving a disabled car or train alone. The risk of attaching the train in its disabled condition was one of the risks of the employment. McCosker v. L. I. R. R. Co., 84 N. Y., 77.
The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.
Pratt, J., concurs.