Case Name: MATTOS v. FELGENHAUER et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-12-31
Citations: 145 N.Y.S. 25
Docket Number: 
Parties: MATTOS v. FELGENHAUER et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 145
Pages: 25–27

Head Matter:
(160 App. Div. 34)
MATTOS v. FELGENHAUER et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
December 31, 1913.)
Master and Servant (§ 285*)—Actions for Injuries—Questions for Jury. In an employe’s action for injuries sustained while attempting to place a belt on a moving pulley, the complaint charged as one of the grounds of negligence the proximity of a coupling in the shaft to the pulley. The employé testified that before the belt caught on the pulley it slipped off and in the same moment, as it slipped, caught his sleeve, and it appeared that the belting then wrapped itself into the space between the coupling and the pulley. Held, that the winding and jamming of the belt into this space was a sequel to, rather than a cause of, the accident and tended to stop the belt and not to enhance the injury, and hence the court properly refused to submit this ground of negligence to the jury.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 1002, 1003, 1007, 1008, 1016, 1035, 1043, 1053; Dec. Dig. § 285.*]
Thomas and Rich, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Kings County.
Action by Edward Mattos against Edmund Felgenhauer and others. From a judgment for defendants and an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before JENKS, P. J., and THOMAS, CARR, RICH, and PUTNAM, JJ.
William E. Butler, of New York City, for appellant.
John C. Robinson, of New York City, for respondents.

Opinion:
PUTNAM, J.
On the former appeal (154 App. Div. 699, 139 N. Y. Supp. 379) it was held that the unguarded bolts projecting from the side of the coupling did not contribute to the accident, as the plaintiff's arm was caught in the belt and not in the coupling.
The complaint charged that the defendant was negligent in "allowing said coupling and the bolts therein to be and remain in close proximity to said belt, and in allowing said belt, pulley and wheel, or wheel and shaft, and shaft coupling and bolts to be and remain dangerous, unsafe, and defective in construction and condition."
At this trial plaintiff testified that as he was trying to put the belt back, and before the belt had caught on to the revolving pulley, it slipped off, and "in that moment as the belt slipped" it threw it out, and from slipping caught the plaintiff's sleeve. On redirect, the plaintiff again stated that, "in the same moment" that the belt fell off, it got hit by the sleeve.
The fact that it drew in the plaintiff's arm and the loose belting then wrapped itself into the space between the coupling and the pulley was a sequel to the accident, rather than its cause. After his sleeve had been caught, the subsequent winding and jamming the belt into the space by the coupling would tend to stop the belt, and not to enhance the injury.
Hence the court on this trial was not required to submit to the jury, as a distinct ground of fault, the question of the nearness of the 'coupling to the pulley.
The judgment and order should therefore be affirmed, with costs.
JENKS, P. J., and CARR, J., concur. THOMAS, J., reads for reversal, with whom RICH, J., concurs.