Case Name: William H. Odell, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-05-02
Citations: 120 N.Y. 323
Docket Number: 
Parties: William H. Odell, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 323–327

Head Matter:
William H. Odell, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
In an action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff while in defendant’s employ, it appeared that for several months prior to the accident plaintiff had been engaged in operating sawing machines in defendant’s car shops; that the injury resulted from the unexpected starting of the machinery, occasioned by a defect, while plaintiff was engaged in changing saws, in doing which it- was necessary for him to put his hand upon them. Defendant’s evidence tended to show that plaintiff had full knowledge of the existence of the defect complained of prior to the accident. Defendant’s counsel requested the court to charge that, if the plaintiff knew or had notice that the machine was out of order, and with this knowledge he placed his hand on the saw, this, “under the circumstances, constitututes contributory negligence, and the plaintiff cannot recover.” This request was refused. Held (Bradley, J., dissenting), error.
(Submitted April 14, 1890;
decided May 2, 1890.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made December 13, 1886, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
The nature of the action and the facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
William II. Robertson for appellant.
The plaintiff was guilty of gross carelessness in putting his hand on the top of the saw while putting on and adjusting the saws, especially so as he seems to have known that the machinery was out of order, and had, once before, started without being set in motion by the plaintiff. (Leary v. B. & A. R. R. Co., 32 Alb. L. J. 299.)
Martin J. Keough for respondent.
Upon the proof the question of defendant’s liability was a question of fact for the jury, and not a question, of law for the court. (Stringham v. Stewart, 100 N. Y. 516; Benzing v. Steinway, 101 id. 547; Pantzer v. T. F. I. M. Co., 99 id. 368; Kain v. Smith, 89 id. 375 ; Fuller v. Jewett, 80 id. 46; Wood on Master and Servant, 730, 791; Lansing v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 49 id. 521; Corcoran v. Holbrook, 59 id. 417; Slater v. Jewett, 85 id. 61; P. R. R. Co. v. Ogier, 35 Penn. St. 60; Cayzer v. Taylor, 10 Gray, 274.) The fact that plaintiff put his fingers on the saw was not, in any aspect of the case, contributory negligence. (Stringham v. Stewart, 100 N. Y. 516; Benzing v. Steinway, 101 id. 547.) The ground of objection was not stated by defendant in his objections. For this reason the exceptions are unavailing and cannot be reviewed. (Schoener v. Lissauer, 36. Hun, 100, 102 ; Tooley v. Bacon, 70 N. Y. 34; Crosby v. Day, 81 id. 243 ; Bergmamn v. Jones, 94 id. 51.)

Opinion:
Parker, J.
The action was for injuries sustained by plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant.
For some months prior to the accident plaintiff had been engaged in the operation of sawing machines in defendant's car shops at West Morrisania. The injury resulted from the unexpected starting of the machinery while plaintiff was engaged in changing saws. It is alleged that the starting was occasioned by the fact that the square bolt or pin, which holds the weight or binder from the belt, called the lever pin, had become so nearly round by frequent use, that it slipped out of the square slot into which it was entered, thereby causing the weight or binder to drop upon the belt and start the saws.
The defendant's evidence tended to show that the plaintiff, having full knowledge of the existence of the defect complained of, nevertheless continued to use the machinery until the happening of the accident. If such were the fact, defendant is not chargeable with the consequences resulting therefrom. (Powers v. N. Y., L. E & W. R. R. Co., 98 N. Y. 274; Monaghan v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 45 Hun, 113.)
But upon this point the evidence was confiieting, and thus was presented a question of fact for the jury.
The counsel for the defendant, at the close of the charge, requested the court to instruct the jury "that if the plaintiff knew or had notice that the machine was out of order, and with this knowledge placed his left hand upon the saw, that the placing of his hand upon the saw, with this knowledge and under the circumstances, constitutes contributory negligence, and the plaintiff cannot recover."
The request was denied and an exception taken.
•Inasmuch as the court had omitted to instruct the jury upon this subject previous to the making of the request, the refusal to charge as requested was error. (Lanning v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 49 N. Y 521; Gibson v. E. R. Co., 63 N Y. 449.)
The judgment should he reversed