Case Name: LEWIS v. NEW YORK, O. & W. R. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-07-11
Citations: 130 N.Y.S. 917
Docket Number: 
Parties: LEWIS v. NEW YORK, O. & W. R. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 130
Pages: 917–920

Head Matter:
LEWIS v. NEW YORK, O. & W. R. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
July 11, 1911.)
1. Master and Servant (§ 111 )—Injuries—Negligence.
Plaintiff and other employés of defendant railroad company opened a car load of hay to unload it, and when it was opened two of the bales, all of which were standing on end, fell upon plaintiff, injuring him There were no cleats across the door opening to prevent the hay from resting against the door. Held, that defendant was not negligent' because the bales were not laid down, instead of on end, or because of the absence of cleats.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 215-217; Dec. Dig. § 111. ]
2. Master and Servant (§ 233 )—Injuries—Contributory Negligence.
The danger in unloading was created by plaintiff and his coemployes by failing to use due care for their own safety when they opened the car.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 681-742; Dec. Dig. § 233. ]
Spring, J., dissenting.
Appeal "from Trial Term, Oswego County.
Action by Uriah H. Lewis against the New York, Ontario & Western Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J„ and SPRING, WILLIAMS, KRUSE, and ROBSON, JJ.
P. W. Cullinan, for appellant.
O. M. Reilly, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
A load of baled hay consigned to plaintiff's employer was being unloaded by the plaintiff and other workmen under his direction. After the door of the car was opened far enough, two bales fell, one after the other, striking the plaintiff and injuring him. The car was loaded by the consignor and transported by the defendant from the station where it was loaded to the station • where it was being unloaded. The plaintiff seeks to recover for the personal injuries thus sustained by him, because, as he claims, the hay was not properly loaded. It is claimed that, instead of standing the bales on end, -they should have been laid down and piled one upon the other, or that there should have been cleats across the door opening or false doors so as to prevent the hay from resting against the door of the car.
It does not seem that negligence can be predicated against the defendant in the way the hay was loaded in the car. So far as there was any danger of the hay falling from the car, the dangerous condition, as it seems to me, was created by the men in unloading. I do not see how it° would make it any safer to pile one bale upon another, if piled as high as a bale standing on end; nor is it clear to me how, as to the unloaders, cleats across the opening or a false door would have made any difference, for the cleat would have had to be removed or the door opened in order to get the hay out. Of course, the situation and danger might be more apparent to the unloaders, but -it would have been apparent to the plaintiff and his men here if they had looked. The door had been opened sufficiently wide before the hay fell, so it could be seen that the bales were standing on end, and that there was no cleat or false door to keep the hay back from against the door. It would seem that, if the plaintiff and his men had been reasonably careful for their own safety in the work of unloading the hay, the accident would not have occurred.
I think the judgment and order must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur, except SPRING, J., dissenting.