Case Name: Satie L. Douglass, as Administratrix, etc., of George H. Waters, Deceased, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-07-08
Citations: 158 A.D. 196
Docket Number: 
Parties: Satie L. Douglass, as Administratrix, etc., of George H. Waters, Deceased, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 158
Pages: 196–200

Head Matter:
Satie L. Douglass, as Administratrix, etc., of George H. Waters, Deceased, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
Third Department,
July 8, 1913.
Negligence — railroads — evidence — negligence of several servants — disagreement of jury as to which particular servant was negligent.
Where in an action against a railroad company to recover damages for death caused by a collision, the proof establishes the negligence of several persons for which the defendant would be liable, the jury may find for the plaintiff although they may not all agree as to which one of the defendant’s servants caused the injury.
Smith, P. J., and Woodward, J., dissented, the latter with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, The New York Central and Hudson Elver Eailroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Schenectady on the 11th day of February, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury for $5,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 10th day of February, 1913, denying defendant’s' motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Visscher, Whalen & Austin [Robert E. Whalen of counsel],for the appellant.
Homer J. Borst, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Kellogg, J.:
The plaintiff's intestate met his death in a rear-end collision on the defendant's road. The evidence as to the defendant's negligence and the intestate's freedom from contributory negligence is satisfactory. The collision was caused by the negligence of a signalman at Crawford's grade, or of a signalman at Eotterdam Junction, or of the engineer upon the engine which collided with the intestate's train. Perhaps the negligence of more than one of these vice-principals brought about the result. The court refused to charge, at the defendant's request, that the jury must be satisfied which one of these vice-principals committed the negligent act and caused the injury. The court charged, in substance, that a recovery could be had if any one of them committed the negligent act, and that it was not necessary for all of the jurors to agree as to which one of the vice-principals caused the injury. If the defendant is right in its contention it would be almost impossible to recover in this case. It is clear that the defendant is liable for the negligence of any one of the three persons, but it is very difficult from the record to determine which one caused the injury. If a defendant negligently pulls the wrong lever and thereby causes an injury, and some witnesses think he pulled it with the right hand and others think he pulled it with the left hand and others think that his foot caused the lever to move, it is entirely immaterial which is right so long as it is clearly established that the negligent act of the defendant caused the injury. I favor an affirmance.
All concurred, except Smith, P. J., and Woodward, J., dissenting, the latter in opinion.