Case Name: WYNKOOP v. LUDLOW VALVE MFG. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-11-22
Citations: 138 N.Y.S. 482
Docket Number: 
Parties: WYNKOOP v. LUDLOW VALVE MFG. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 138
Pages: 482–486

Head Matter:
(153 App. Div. 507.)
WYNKOOP v. LUDLOW VALVE MFG. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
November 22, 1912.)
1. Master and Servant (§ 288*)—Injury to Servant—Assumption op Bisk.
An employer may not defend on the ground that the employé in continuing in the employment with full knowledge of a danger assumed the risk as a matter of law.
[Ed. Note.-—Eor other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 1005, 1068-1088; Dec. Dig. § 288.*]
2. Appeal and Error (§ 1212*)—Law of the Case—Scope of Decision—
New Trial.
Where the Court of Appeals reversed a judgment for an employé suing for an injury caused by his involuntarily placing his hand on an unguarded track of a traveling crane, because there was no evidence that it was practical to guard the track, and on a retrial there was evidence that a-similar-track in another factory was guarded to protect the employes from danger, the case must be submitted to the jury, and a new trial after verdict for plaintiff could riot be granted on the authority of trie decision of the Court of Appeals.
[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Appeal and Error, Gent. Dig. § 4713; Dec. Dig. § 1212.*]
•For other cases see same topic S § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
3. Damages (§ 130*)—Personal Injuries—Excessive Damages.
Where, in a personal injury action, two juries awarded a verdict of $2,000 and another jury awarded $1,000, a fourth verdict for $6,000 was excessive, and must be reduced to $3,000.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Damages, Cent. Dig. §§ 357-367, 370, 371; Dec. Dig. § 130.*]
Kellogg and Lyon, JJ., dissenting.
♦For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
Appeal from Trial Term, Rensselaer County.
Action by William Wynkoop against the Ludlow Valve Manufacturing Company. From an order setting aside a verdict for plaintiff and granting a new trial, he appeals. Conditionally affirmed.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, HOUGHTON BETTS, and LYON, JJ.
J. W. Atkinson, of Waterford, for appellant.
Rosendale & Hessberg and Peter A. Delaney, all of Albany, for respondent.

Opinion:
SMITH, P. J.
This is the fourth trial of this action. The first trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $2,000. The judgment thereupon was reversed in this court, and a new trial granted. The opinion is reported in 112 App. Div. 729, 98 N. Y. Supp. 1076, and states fully the circumstances under which the accident occurred. Upon the second trial the plaintiff'had a verdict for $2,000, the judgment upon which verdict was reversed in this court (119 App. Div. 928, 104 N. Y. Supp. 1151) upon the ground that the plaintiff assumed the risk involved in the negligence which was made the basis of the plaintiff's cause of action. The third trial resulted in a verdict of $1,000, judgment upon which was affirmed in this court (126 App. Div. 939, 110 N. Y. Supp. 1150), and reversed in the Court of Appeals, as reported in 196 N. Y. 324, 89 N. E. 827, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 36. The fourth trial resulted in a verdict of $6,000. This verdict was set aside by the trial judge practically upon the ground that the Court of Appeals had determined that there was no negligence shown. From this order granting a new trial this appeal is taken.
Under the case of Fitzwater v. Warren, 99 N. E. 1042, recently decided by the Court of Appeals, opinion not yet officially reported, the defendant cannot defend upon the ground that the plaintiff in continuing in the employment, with full knowledge of the danger, assumed the risk as matter of law.
But the Court of Appeals, when this case was before that court, put the reversal upon another ground, and that was that the defendant was not required to guard the track .over which this crane passed because it was impracticable. Judge Chase in the opinion says:
"There is no testimony in the record to show that it was practical to guard the rail or that such a rail is now or ever has been guarded in any similar or other factory."
Upon the retrial, however, evidence was introduced to the effect that in the General Electric Works in Schenectady a similar track was guarded so as to remove the danger to employés that here exists. Prima facie it would seem that a guard rail might easily be placed in front of this track so that an employé working adjacent thereto would be protected in case he should fall or slip into danger. The proof that such a guard rail was in fact used to protect the employés from danger in another shop would seem to distinguish the case from the case as it appeared when it was considered by the Court of Appeals and would seem to presént to the jury sufficient ground to enable them to say, in the exercise of their judgment, that the defendant was negligent in failing to guard this track. Por these reasons, we are of the opinion that the case should have been submitted to the jury, and a new trial should not have been granted upon the authority of the decision in the Court of Appeals upon the former appeal.
Three juries have heretofore passed upon this case, two of them giving verdicts of $2,000 and one $1,000. In view of these facts, we are of the opinion that the verdict is excessive, and that $3,000 would be a fair compensation for the injuries which plaintiff received.
The order should, therefore, be affirmed, unless plaintiff will stipulate to. reduce the verdict to $3,000, and, if such stipulation be filed, judgment may be entered upon the verdict as modified. Upon the filing of the stipulation the order should be reversed upon the law, with the recital to the effect that the court has examined the facts and has approved of the determination of the jury thereupon.
Order affirmed, with costs, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce the verdict to $3,000. If such stipulation be filed, judgment may be entered upon the verdict as modified. Upon filing stipulation, the order should be reversed upon the law, with a recital to the effect that the court has examined the facts and has approved the determination of the jury thereupon. All concur, except KELLOGG, J., dissenting in opinion in which LYON, J., concurs.