Case Name: DOUGLASS v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-07-08
Citations: 143 N.Y.S. 115
Docket Number: 
Parties: DOUGLASS v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 143
Pages: 115–118

Head Matter:
(158 Misc. Rep. 196.)
DOUGLASS v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
July 8, 1913.)
Master and Servant (§ 279*)—Injuries to Servant—Cause of Injuries.
In an action for the death of a freight conductor, killed by a rear-end collision, plaintiff was entitled to recover against defendant railroad company upon showing that the collision was due to the negligence of one of three vice principals, although not showing which one.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 97&-975, 978-980; Dec. Dig. § 279. ]
Smith, P. J., and Woodward, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Schenectady County.
Action by Satie L. Douglass, administratrix of George H. Waters;, deceased, against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad-Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.Affirmed.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, LYON, HOWARD and WOODWARD, JJ.
Visscher, Whalen & Austin, of Albany (Robert E. Whalen, of Albany, of counsel), for appellant.
Homer J. Borst, of Amsterdam, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 19Q7 to date, & Rep'r Indexes-

Opinion:
JOHN M. 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 Rotterdam 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 either one 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 either 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.
LYON and HOWARD, JJ., concur. SMITH, P. J., dissents.