Case Name: Bernard Keenan, Plaintiff, v. McAdams & Cartwright Elevator Co. and Samuel J. Bloomingdale, Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-03
Citations: 58 Misc. 371
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bernard Keenan, Plaintiff, v. McAdams & Cartwright Elevator Co. and Samuel J. Bloomingdale, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
Bernard Keenan, Plaintiff, v. McAdams & Cartwright Elevator Co. and Samuel J. Bloomingdale, Defendants.
(Supreme Court, New York Trial Term,
March, 1908.)
Negligence — Actions — Evidence — Weight and sufficiency—Careless use of machinery.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, where it appears that the plaintiff refused to work near the machine which caused the accident unless it was stopped; that the defendant’s representative undertook to stop it while plaintiff was at work and did stop it, hut, while plaintiff was working with one foot on the machine, it suddenly started and injured him, the plaintiff has made "out a case for the jury under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Motion for new trial. The opinion states the case.
Sidney J. Cowen, for plaintiff.
Butler, Notman & Mynderse (H. C. Smyth, of counsel), for defendant McAdams, etc.
Carl S. Petrasch, for defendant Bloomingdale.

Opinion:
Ford, J.
Although plaintiff failed to prove the specific acts of negligence alleged in his complaint, yet upon the trial counsel for the defendant Bloomingdale expresssly waived any objection upon that score. Plaintiff did proceed with his proof along the lines of his pleading so far as to make a case for the jury, in my opinion, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The jury were warranted in finding that plaintiff refused to work near the machine which caused the accident unless it were stopped; that the chief engineer, the authorized representative of the defendant Bloomingdale, who had exclusive and entire control of the machine and the extensive plant of which it formed a part, undertook to stop the machine while plaintiff did the work near it; that the hour was agreed upon with plaintiff at which the machine should stop, and, in fact, did stop, to enable plaintiff to do the work in safety; that plaintiff did go to work at or shortly after the hour stated, with the machine in a stationary condition, and that while he was working with one foot on the machine it suddenly started and injured him. I take the opinion by Chief Justice Cullen in Griffen v. Manice, 166 N. Y. 188, to be the latest authoritative discussion of the general principles which govern the application of the rule in question. Its application should not, of course, be extended, and should be made with great care, yet when a case is presented which clearly calls for its application the court should not hesitate to apply it. I believe this to be such a ease. The motion of the defendant will therefore be denied.
Motion denied.