Case Name: Charles Hanson, Respondent, v. Charles W. Hogan and Jefferson Hogan, Doing Business as T. Hogan & Sons, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-11
Citations: 61 Misc. 95
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles Hanson, Respondent, v. Charles W. Hogan and Jefferson Hogan, Doing Business as T. Hogan & Sons, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 95–96

Head Matter:
Charles Hanson, Respondent, v. Charles W. Hogan and Jefferson Hogan, Doing Business as T. Hogan & Sons, Appellants.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
November, 1908.)
Master and servant — Master’s liability for injuries to servant —Weight and sufficiency of evidence — Negligence on part of master—Facts that do not imply negligence.
That a winch, used in unloading a vessel, reversed while defendants’ employee was pulling in rope over one of the drums and caused the rope to run the opposite way, whereby the servant went over the winch and struck the hatch comb, may prove the fact of injury, but it shows no violation of the employers’ legal obligation to the servant.
Appeal by the defendants from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, ninth district, borough of Manhattan.
James B. Henney, for appellants.
Charles Swanson, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff brings his action under the Employers' Liability Act to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been received under the employment of the defendants, while he was working at, and in consequence of a defect in, a winch used in unloading a vessel at pier 39, North river. He so timely notified his employers in writing, but his testimony fails to establish a defect. That the winch reversed while he was pulling in rope over one of its drums, and caused the rope to run the opposite way, whereby the plaintiff went over the winch and struck the hatch comb, may prove the fact of accident and injury, but'not the violation of legal obligation on the part of his employers, the defendants. The judgment herein in his favor should, therefore, be reversed, and a new trial ordered.
Present: Gildersleeve, MacLean and Seabury, JJ.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.