Case Name: KELLEY v. JEFFERSON POWER CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-11-20
Citations: 138 N.Y.S. 889
Docket Number: 
Parties: KELLEY v. JEFFERSON POWER CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 138
Pages: 889–893

Head Matter:
(153 App. Div. 610.)
KELLEY v. JEFFERSON POWER CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department,
November 20, 1912.)
Master and Servant (§ 243*)—Injury to Servant—Contributory Negligence.
That an employs, killed from the bursting of a tank which he was filling with sulphuric acid to within 8 or 10 inches of the top, has been directed not to fill the tank to within 3 feet of the top, and that his violation of such instruction was the contributing cause of the accident, will not preclude a.recovery against his employer, where he could tell how full the tank was only by climbing to the top, and his duties in pumping required him to be below, and such directions were apparently given merely to keep the tank from overflowing, and did not suggest, to him that the tank was liable to give .way if filled beyond 3 feet of the top.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 682, 759-775; Dec. Dig. § 243.*]
McLennan, P. J., and Lambert, J., dissenting.
*For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
Appeal from Trial Term, Jefferson County.
Action by Finton Kelley, as administrator, against the Jefferson Power Company. From an order setting aside verdict for defendant and granting a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
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, but 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.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and KRUSE, ROBSON, FOOTE, and LAMBERT, JJ.
N. F. Breen, of Watertown, for appellant.
Burton B. Parsons, of Syracuse, for respondent.

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
I am not inclined to disagree with the Presiding Jus_ tice 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 the deceased had received the instructions not to fill the tank to with in 3 feet of the top, and he in violation of those instructions filled it to within 8 or 10 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, to 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 concur, except McLENNAN, P. J., and LAMBERT, J., who dissent.