Case Name: Thomas Hesketh, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-01
Citations: 37 A.D. 78
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Hesketh, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 78–92

Head Matter:
Thomas Hesketh, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.
Negligence—a block signalman injured by reason of the structure in which he was employed falling during a high wind—duty of the railroad to p'l'ovide against unknown dangers attendant on the use of a new device—a question for the jury.
A railroad company, for the purpose of establishing a new system of signaling, provided at intervals along its road iron bridges which were designed by a civil engineer of high repute and erected by the construction company of which he was president, after plans therefor had been submitted to the chief engineer of the railroad.
The bridges were supported by four iron legs to each of which was attached an iron plate which was bolted to a foundation stone eighteen by twenty-four inches, and around each leg, from the surface of the ground to the foundation stone, was a box ten by twelve inches, filled with concrete. The length of the bridge was about fifty-seven feet, the top was twenty-five feet and six inches above the railroad track, and at one end was the cabin in which the signalman discharged his duties, the top of the cabin being about forty-one feet above the track. The distance between the legs of the bridge, measured along the track, was about nine feet. During a severe wind storm one of these structures, which had been erected on the top of an embankment of considerable height in the open country, and the posts of which had been sunk three or four feet in the sandy, gravelly soil of the embankment, was blown down, one of the posts having been pulled out of the ground, together with the anchor stone and box of concrete, and the other posts having been twisted and bent over.
In an action brought against the railroad company by a signalman who occupied the cabin at the time and Was injured by its fall, it was
Held, in view of the fact that the signal structures were a new device, and that the railroad company did not know what was requisite to make them safe, that it was its duty to do more than that which its actual knowledge of what was requisite suggested, and to make reasonable provision against the unknown; and that whether it had done so was a question for the jury.
Herrick, J., dissented.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Thomas Hesketh, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the .Schenectady Trial Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Schenectady on the 13th day of November, 1897, granting the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict of a jury previously rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $20,200, upon the ground that it was excessive.
In the year 1892, the defendant established along the line of its road what is known as the block system of signaling, and for that purpose it erected, or had erected, along its tracks at intervals of two and a half miles, iron bridge-like structures resting upon iron legs or supports, one at each corner, imbedded in the ground near the tracks, which structures "extended over and across the tracks in the manner of a bridge. On the top of this bridge, and at one end of it, was a cabin built of wood, within which the signalman stood and discharged the duties of his position.
The plan of these structures was designed by a construction company known as the Hilton Bridge Company, which was engaged in the business of constructing bridges and viaducts, and work of similar character; its president was a civil engineer, who had been engaged in the duties of his profession about forty years, in the construction of railroads and the building of bridges; he was an engineer of high repute, and had held the office of State Engineer of this State.
The plan of these structures was devised by this president of the construction company, and was by him submitted to the chief engineer of the defendant, who suggested that the legs or posts upon which the bridge was supported, at the point where they were inserted in the ground, be surrounded by a wooden box and that box filled with concrete ; with this modification, which was agreed to by the president of the construction company, the plans were accepted, and the contract was thereupon made with the Hilton Bridge Construction Company for the construction and erection of these signal towers or bridges upon the plans prepared by it.
The Hilton. Bridge Company both constructed and erected all the bridges or signal towers, some seventy-one in number, taking complete and sole charge both of their construction and erection, the only thing done by the defendant being the selection of inspectors, to inspect the quality of the iron used at the establishment from which the Hilton Bridge Company purchased such iron, the wages- or salaries of such inspectors being paid, however, by the Hilton Bridge Company.
It is unnecessary to give all the details of the construction of these structures; suffice it to say that at the foot of each leg or post, and attached to it, was a rectangular piece of iron three-eighths of an inch thick about ten by twelve inches in area, which plate was bolted to a foundation stone which was to be eighteen by twenty-four inches; around each leg, extending from the surface of the ground to this foundation stone, was a box ten by twelve inches, filled with concrete, the distance between each of the legs, measured along the track, being about nine feet from outside to outside. The bridge or truss supported upon these legs and extending over the tracks was made of angle iron; upon such bridges was a wooden floor covering its entire width, at one end being the cabin structure above referred to ; the length of the structure was about fifty-seven feet, the top of the bridge twenty-five feet six inches above the railroad tracks, and the top of the cabin forty-one feet; all "the structures were built upon the same plan.
The legs or supports were not stayed in any manner with either wires, cables or rods.
The structure in which the plaintiff was injured was brought to the place where it was erected complete; the foundation stones were attached to the posts or legs, which were lowered into holes prepared for them in an embankment, three or four feet deep, which embankment was composed of a sandy, gravelly soil; after the legs-were lowered into the holes prepared for them, the earth was thrown back and stamped down. The plans and use of these structures-were new.
On the 27th day of December, 1895, during a severe wind storm,, the tower or bridge where the plaintiff was working was blown down; one of the posts with the anchor stone and box filled with concrete was pulled out of the ground; the other posts were twisted. and bent over, and the structure fell to the ground, greatly injuring the plaintiff.
The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant to recover damages for the injuries so received by him; the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of $20,000; the defendant “ moved on the minutes that the. verdict be set aside, and a new trial granted upon the ground of the exceptions; that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, and the damages excessive; ” the motion was granted upon the ground that the damages were excessive.
After the entry of the order, the plaintiff applied to the trial justice for a modification thereof, so that the order would read that the order was granted solely on the ground that the damages were excessive, which application was denied, and from the order setting aside the verdict the plaintiff appeals to this court.
Alonzo P. Strong, for the appellant.
Samuel W. Jackson, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Landos, J.:
Here was a new device — a small house or cabin erected upon stilts upon the top of an embankment of considerable height in the open country, and so rising above the embankment that its bottom was clear above the reach of passing tiains. It was peculiarly exposed to the violence of the winds and storms; it was so constructed that its whole height and substance above the surface of the ground was, when subjected to the pressure of the wind, the long arm of a lever exerting its force to pry up the earth and stone that fixed and bound its shorter arm to and within the ground. This cabin was the post of the plaintiff's duty.
Let it be conceded that this erection received in its design, substance and manner of construction the careful consideration of experts in civil engineering and bridge construction, still this was the first of its kind; no experts in this identical class of structures were obtainable. The question is, who should take the risk of its practical test of storm worthiness ? • Who should suffer ' if the breadth of its base' was too narrow, the depths to which the supports were sunken into the ground too shallow, the anchorage of ¡ stone too light, the consistency or cohesion of the earth into which the supports were placed too sandy or too weak, the precautionary appliances of safety in the form of stays, braces and lateral supports too few ? The mere laborer, whose knowledge could not attain to the range of any of these problems, and whose means were limited to his daily wages, or the railroad company, whose power compasses the knowledge of past experience, and which is able in case such experience does not show the exact requirements of safety, to add such a margin of extra safeguards as shall secure it, if not beyond peradventure, at least to the extent of a reasonably cautious apprehension ?
The answer to this question depends upon the proper answer to be given to the further question : Did the railroad company use reasonable care in making and employing this device ? This is to be answered in view of the absence of practical tests of this class of erections, their exposure to the violence of extraordinary storms, the presumed knowledge of the company of the operation of natural and mechanical forces, its duty to supplement the theoretical needs of safety by a liberal margin of safeguards against mistakes or underestimates, and the danger to which employees would be exposed if the structure should be overthrown.
Now, it is plain that the tests of care which are applied to the •construction of well-known structures, such as houses, scaffolds, "bridges and the ordinary tools and appliances of our various industries, are not adequate or fitting here, since experience has demon•strated the practical requirements and limits of reasonable care respecting them. When, for the first time, the employer passes beyond the range of experience and enters a new field of danger, the extent of the safeguards against which are not exactly known, reasonable care requires that he should provide a reasonable margin of safeguards against this unknown margin of danger.
It is not a question whether new devices and experiments, with the view to the attainment of new factors of economy, efficiency, safety or comfort, are not praiseworthy — this is conceded; but whether they who exploit them in the first instance, and place their «employees in them as in a safe place to labor, and because of the lack of requisite safeguards thus injure their employees, have exercised reasonable care.
This is a question of fact to be resolved upon consideration of all the facts. The court cannot resolve it. The court cannot say, as a matter of law, that when the requisite amount of care was known by the company to be unknown, the company used all that was requisite. It may be that the company used all that it knew to be requisite. But the company knew that it did not know what was actually requisite, and hence it knew that if it only used all that it knew to be requisite it was liable to fall short in respect to the unknown quantity. Hence, it was its duty to do more than its actual knowledge of what was requisite suggested, and to make reasonable provision against the unknown. If it did not do this, it failed in reasonable care. Whether it .so failed was a question for the jury. The court cannot assume to know the unknown, and it is for the jury to draw the true inference of fact from the evidential facts, some of which point to one conclusion and others to another. To say that the jury is unreliable in such cases is to attack the system.
The verdict is very large — so large, indeed, as to suggest the idea that it is due in part to the supposed wealth of the defendant, and, therefore, to that extent excessive.
I advise that it be reduced to $15,000, and that the order be :
Order affirmed, with costs to abide the event, unless the plaintiff stipulate within twenty days to reduce the verdict to $15,000, in which case the order is reversed and the verdict is reduced to $15,000, and judgment for that amount directed thereon, with costs below, but not of this appeal.
All concurred, except Putnam, J., not sitting, and Herrick, J., dissenting in opinion.