Case Name: WILLIAMS v. CITIZENS' STEAMBOAT CO. OF TROY
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-11-25
Citations: 113 N.Y.S. 616
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAMS v. CITIZENS’ STEAMBOAT CO. OF TROY.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 113
Pages: 616–619

Head Matter:
(128 App. Div. 807.)
WILLIAMS v. CITIZENS’ STEAMBOAT CO. OF TROY.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
November 25, 1908.)
Master and Servant (§ 129 )—Place tor Work—Injuries to Servant-Proximate Cause.
Where the master’s superintendent had a box of freight leaned against the side of a gangway leading to defendant’s steamboat, and the box fell without injuring anybody, and was again placed in position against the side of the gangway and fell, injuring a servant, any negligence in originally placing the box in such position was not the proximate cause of the accident, as it fell the first time without causing injury; and, in an action by the servant for the injury, where the jury were permitted to base their verdict either on negligence in the original placing of the box or on negligence in replacing it after it had first fallen, the verdict will be set aside, since it may have been based on negligence in originally placing the box.
[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 257-263; Dec. Dig. § 129. ]
Chester and Kellogg, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Rensselaer County.
Personal injury action by Frank Williams against the Citizens’ Steamboat Company of Troy, N. Y. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial,, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and CHESTER, KELLOGG, COCHRANE, and SEWELL, JJ.
Rosendale & Hessberg (Murray Downs, of counsel), for appellant.
Countryman, Nellis & Du Bois (Andrew J. Nellis, of counsel), for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to Sate, & Rep'r Indexes
For other oases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
COCHRANE, J.
This case on a former appeal is reported in 122 App. Div. 188, 106 N. Y. Supp. 975. There is on this appeal no material change in the facts. "Plaintiff was injured by reason of a large box of freight falling upon him. This box was being unloaded from the defendant's steamboat in Troy. At the direction of one Vandervolgen, defendant's superintendent, it was placed in the gangway leading from the boat, and leaned up against the side of the gangway. It fell without injury to any one. Thereafter, under the direction of one Vanderheyden, the box was again placed in position against the side of the gangway. It again fell, this time injuring plaintiff.
' The learned trial justice permitted the jury to base their verdict either on the negligence of Vandervolgen, the superintendent, in suffering the box to be placed in the gangway in its original position before its first fall, or on the negligence of Vanderheyden in causing it to be placed in position the second time, on the theory that Vanderheyden was superintendent in the absence of Vandervolgen, and that the latter perhaps was absent when the box was placed in position the second time. It is clear that, if the box was originally negligently placed in position, such negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury, because the box fell without injuring plaintiff. It was the second adjustment of the box which caused the injury. Placing the box in the gangway was not negligence, but the manner in which it was there placed. No one can say that it was placed at the same angle on the two occasions, or that it was similarly placed in other respects, or that the same conditions attended its fall on the two occasions, or that the same causes produced the two falls. As pointed out by this court on the former appeal, the box may have fallen because of the swaying of the boat at the dock which conveyed some motion to the box standing in the gangway, or it may have been overturned by a gust of wind. There may have been other reasons for its falling not identical on the two occasions; but whatever may have been the im mediate cause- of the box falling on the two occasions it is very clear that Vandervolgen causéd no injury by permitting the box to be placed in the gangway before its first fall, and, as the verdict may be based on such alleged 'negligence, it cannot stand.
The judgment and order must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the ¿vent. All concur, except CHESTER and KELLOGG, JJ., who dissent.