Case Name: BRONISLAW GRIJNUK, RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM G. McADOO, DIRECTOR GENERAL, APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1920-10-15
Citations: 95 N.J.L. 256
Docket Number: 
Parties: BRONISLAW GRIJNUK, RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM G. McADOO, DIRECTOR GENERAL, APPELLANT.
Judges: For affirmance — Swayze, BbkgeN, Kaliscii, KatzeN-BACii, White, HebpeNueiMKR, Williayls, Taylor, Gaed-NEIÍ, JJ. 9.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 256–257

Head Matter:
BRONISLAW GRIJNUK, RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM G. McADOO, DIRECTOR GENERAL, APPELLANT.
Argued June 17, 1920
Decided October 15, 1920.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which court the following per cuñrnv was filed:
“The suit was instituted under the Federal Employers’ Liability act, for damages consequent upon the death of a brother of the administratrix, arid upon whom the jury might have found the plaintiff to have been dependent, so as to bring her within the provisions of the act. Michigan C. R. R. v. Vreeland-, 227 U. S. 59; In re -Kenney, 204 U. S. 497.
“The plaintiff was employed by defendant company to remove lamps from the rear of trains in the depot, and to fill them for future use. While engaged in this work, on a standing train at the depot in Jersey City, the train was suddenly, and without any notice to' the employe, pushed back against the bumper and plaintiff’s intestate was killed. This clearly indicated negligence in operation, because the deceased had a right to assume that the train, being in the depot at rest and practically up against the bumper, would go forward rather than backward, if it moved at all; and in any event would not be moved back without notice of some kind to an employe like deceased, who it must be assumed would be expected there to perform his work.
“We think the question was one of fact for the jury under all the cases involving questions of disputed facts regarding the performance of the duty imposed upon the master by law. We think the amendment allowed to the petition did not change in any material aspect the gravamen of the case so as to prejudice defendant in any material manner, and that the amendment in such circumstances is entirely a matter of sound discretion. Koenneclcer v. Seaboard Air Line, 239 U. S. 353.
“The judgment will be affirmed.”
.For the respondent, Alexander Simpson.
For the appellant, Collins £ Corbin.

Opinion:
Pee CukiaM.
The judgment under review' herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — Swayze, BbkgeN, Kaliscii, KatzeN-BACii, White, HebpeNueiMKR, Williayls, Taylor, Gaed-NEIÍ, JJ. 9.
For reversal — None.