Case Name: John Lee, Respondent, v. The Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-01
Citations: 57 A.D. 378
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Lee, Respondent, v. The Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 378–380

Head Matter:
John Lee, Respondent, v. The Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company, Appellant.
Bridge—constructed by a railroad company overa highway—an injury resulting from an attempt “ to tales across it a load exceeding four tons in weight ’’
Section 154 of chapter 568 of the Laws of 1890, providing that a person who suffers injury from the breaking of a bridge upon a public highway while ^ attempting “to take across-it a load exceeding four tons in weight,” cannot recover damages against the town for injuries so sustained, applies to’a bridge • constructed by a railroad company in order to take a highway across its road, and relieves the railroad company from liability to the person who sustains personal injuries under the circumstances mentioned in the section.
Smith and Edwards, JJ., dissented. ■
Appeal by the defendant, The Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Tompkins on the 16th day of April, 1900, upon the verdict of a jury for $11,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 10th day of October, 1900, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made, upon the minutes.
The defendant, in constructing its railroad, had crossed the highway through a deep cut, and had been obliged to take such highway over its road by a bridge. The plaintiff, in crossing such bridge with a heavy traction engine, upon which he was riding, and .which it was claimed weighed, with its load and attachments, considerably more than four tons, broke through the bridge and was seriously injured. Negligence was charged against defendant for not keeping such bridge in reasonably safe repair, and its breaking down, and the injury consequent thereon, is charged as the result of. such negligence. This action was brought to recover against defendant for the injuries sustained. The jury rendered a verdict in-favor of plaintiff, and from the judgment rendered thereon and the order, denying a new trial this appeal is taken. .
Holliday <& Denton, for the appellant.
Tomplcins, Cobb <& Oobb, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam :
Upon the trial of this action the court was asked to charge as follows : " That section 154, chapter 568, Laws of 1890j is applicable to this case; and that if the jury believe that the weight of the engine and its load exceeded eight thousand pounds, then the plaintiff cannot recover because of that statute." The court declined such request, and an exception by the defendant was duly taken.
That statute in substance provides that whoever suffers injury from the breaking of a bridge upon a public highway when attempting to take across it a load exceeding four tons in weight, cannot recover against the town damages for the injury so sustained, but •on the contrary the town may recover damages from him for the injury to the bridge.
There was evidence tending to show that the load which the plaintiff was attempting to take across this bridge considerably exceeded four tons, and, therefore, if the statute did apply to this bridge the request to charge was evidently both " material and -correct.
We are of the opinion that such statute does apply to the bridge in question.
By the construction of its railroad it became necessary for the •defendant to erect this bridge in the highway, and it was, therefore, lawfully and properly erected. From that time forth it became necessary for the public use that some one should keep it in proper Repair, and the law imposed that duty upon the defendant instead of upon the town. But the amount of care which the company must thereafter give to such repairs and the extent to which such bridge must be kept serviceable and safe for the public use was not enlarged by the statute which imposed such duty upon the company; It does not require that such bridge should be a stronger bridge or a safer one than is needed to meet the ordinary purposes and use to which such highway is put, nor is any reason apparent why such an additional duty should be imposed upon the company. The bridges over the streams crossing the highway which are maintained by the town are deemed sufficiently strong and safe if a load not exceeding four tons may be safely taken across; why should this particular bridge be required to carry more than the bridge over a stream one-half a mile east of it is required to sustain ? We see no reason for holding a railroad company under such circumstances to any stricter duty or liability -.than is held against the town. The statute in this respect marks the extent of the duty which is imposed Upon each, and we think the trial court should have charged as the defendant requested. Its refusal to-do so was error,, for which a new trial must be granted. .
When the action brought by Bush to recover for injuries caused by this same accident was before ús, a majority of the court were not of the opinion that the 'record presented, this question in a man-tier which permitted us to pass, tipon it. In this record it is specifically presented, and we have reached the conclusion above stated. For that reason the judgment, and order must be reversed and a new trial granted,, with costs to abide the event.
All concurred, except Smith and Edwards^ JJ., dissenting.
Judgment and order reversed on the law and affirmed on the facts. ! • •