Qarnell Law School Library Cornell University Libra Timi A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ARRANGED ACCORDING TO FACTS AND LAW; CONTAINING ° ALL REPORTED NEGLIGENCE CASES DECIDED IN ALL THE NEW YORK STATE COURTS FROM OCTOBER 10, 1903, TO JUNE 1, 1912. SUPPLEMENTING HAMILTON’S CYCLOPEDIA OF NEGLIGENCE CASES BY F. NEWELL GILBERT — , OF THE BINGHAMTON, N. Y., BAR AUTHOR OF «FORENSIC QUOTATIONS,” ‘*«BOARDS OF TRADE AND VILLAGE IMPROVEMENT SOCIETIES ”” NEW YORK BAKER, VOORHIS & CO. 1912 Copyricut, 1912, sy F. N. GILBERT PRESS OF T. MOREY & SON GREENFIELD, MASS., U. 8. A. 5 PREFACE This work contains the New York negligence cases from the close of Hamil- ton’s Digest (1904) (175 N. Y. 462; 86 App. Div. 145; 41 Misc. 224) as reported from the Court of Appeals, Appellate Division, Supreme Court, trial term, County Courts, Municipal Courts and City Courts to the date hereof, including 204 N. Y. 341; 147 App. Div. 733; 74 Misc. 463. It is divided into the two subdivisions of Facts and Law. In the classification of facts, the substantive facts have been grouped, under separate heads as far as possible, and arranged in alphabetical order. This enables the practitioner to easily find cases with similar facts to his case and under the head he would be most likely to look. The subject matter of the facts and law has been digested as pointedly and in as few words as possible; also a reference has been made to the disposition of the case and amount of ver- dict if reported. The usefulness of the work and purpose of the classification is primarily to guide the lawyer to all cases having similar facts to the case he has in hand. In the department of law, the legal questions arising in each case referred to in the opinion, have all been arranged by groups alphabetically, in order that the practitioner may readily find a list of the latest legal precedents on the subject of his case. In the preparation of this work over three thousand cases have been ex- amined. The separate lists of the subjects immediately preceding the sub- divisions of facts and law giving the page number of the subject, readily enable the practitioner to find the cases desired. The subjects have been where per- missible, cross-indexed under several heads so as to be brought to the attention of the reader under one head or the other. It has been our aim to bring the whole subject of negligence actions in the State of New York down to date in a convenient arrangement for ready reference. Bincuamton, N. Y., June, 1912. F. NEWELL GILBERT. TABLE OF EXCESSIVE AND NON-EXCESSIVE VERDICTS EXCESSIVE VERDICTS $17,500, action for injuring arm in machine. Drese v. Elliot, 187 App. Div. 252. Where it exceeds probable earnings according to mortality tables. Verdict $20,000. O’Doherty v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., 1384 App. Div. 298. $3,200, reduced to $2,500, injury from fall of flour sacks. Weinert v. Merchants and Shippers Warehouse Co., 127 App. Div. 826. $2,500, child’s legs crushed by vehicle on street. Barretto v. Moquin, Offerman, Wells Coal Co., 142 App. Div. 504. $5,000 decedent unmarried. Rice v. Interurban Street R. R., 121 App. Div. 714. Verdict of $4,000, condition of hysteria resulting from injury might have resulted from other causes. DesMoineaux v. N. Y. City R. R., 118 App. Div. 848. $9,000, slipping on hole in side walk. Ross v. Metropolitan Street R. R., 116 App. Div. 507. $3,000 for death of man 72 years of age. Wagner v. Clausen & Son Brewing Co., 146 App. Div. 70. $15,000, plaintiff earning $12.00 per week, reduced to $7,500. Walsh v. Riesenberg et al., 110 App. Div. 19. VERDICTS NOT EXCESSIVE $25,000, injury from fall of iron column lifted by derrick. Hurley v. Olcott, 134 App. Div. 631. | $12,958, for death of man 35 years old leaving wife and child. McCormick v. Rochester R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 760. v1 EXCESSIVE AND NON-EXCESSIVE VERDICTS $9,000 for loss of use of arm and breaking three ribs. Burk v. City and County Contract Co., 133 App. Div. 113. $7,948, for loss of an eye. Haley v. Solvay Process Co., 127 App. Div. 753. $7,500 stepping into man-hole with defective covering and fall- ing. Casey v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 128 App. Div. 86. $7,500, crushed between travelling crane and braces. Foster v. Crooker Co., 142 App. Div. 268. $9,000, tuberculosis resulting from injury while boarding car. Roenbeck v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 123 App. Div. 606. $2,000, fall on icy side walk. Powers v. Village of Moravia, 123 App. Div. 191. $20,000, falling onto buckets in grain elevator, prolonged suf- fering. Lynch v. American Linseed Co., 122 App. Div. 428. Verdict inadequate: $200 for injury on street car. Tourtelotte v. Westchester Electric R. R., 120 App. Div. 417. $19,000. Kreamer v. New York Edison Co., 102 App. Div. 433. $2,000, fractured leg. Leonard v. Union R. R. Co., 98 App. Div. 204. $10,500, injury to child playing in street. Burk v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 98 App. Div. 219. $15,000, medical services, attendance, ete. Jones v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 99 App. Div. 1. $1,800, injury by fall of chimney. Travers v. Murray, 87 App. Div. 552. $12,000, child injured by car. Lafferty v. 3d Ave. R. R., 85 App. Div. 592. TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] A Abrahamson »v. General Supply & Construction Co., 112 App. Div. B18 sar ake ee He eed 104, 374 Abramovitz v. Tenzer, 144 App. Div. 110 ete aei de ae cahGlnes dats 274, 548 Acardo v. N. Y. Contracting & Truck- ing Co., 116 App. Div. 793 337, 406, 456, 457 Acker, Merrall & Condit v. Stern, 49 Misc. 650............---.0.00 02 3, 38 Ackerman »v. Livingston, 57 Misc. 379 280 Acton v. Reed, 104 App. Div. 507 ... 118 Adams v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 116 App: Divs 815s. 4.62464 esec ne tee 265 Adsit ». Catskill Electric R. R. Co., 88 App. Div. 167...............4, 19, 234 Agresta v. Stevenson, 112 App. Div. BET Gage ces anae cess 184, 407 Ahrens v. City of Rochester, 97 App. Div. 480s she snasahcadead 350, 351, 434 Aitken v. Cornell Co., 130 App. Div. BOA oy bo ies ahaa aieesacace e Sank 15, 275, 369, 533 Aken v. Barnet & Aufsesser Knitting Co., 118 App. Div. 463....73, 300, 365, 373, 544 Albrecht v. Rochester 8. & E. R. R., 205 Ne Ye. 280.25 cnn dod arava 34 Aldrich ». Laul, 126 App. Div. 427 86, 313, 530 Aleckson v. Erie R. R. Co., 101 App. Digees | vasceocseenaiee nd 116 Alfson v. Bush Co., 182 N. Y. 393 285, 300, 357 Allecot v. Kirkham, 101 App. Div. 77 138, 332, 485 Altankirch v, National Biscuit Co., 127 App. Div. 307............. 38, 394, 517 Ambellan v. Barcalo Mfg. Co., 118 App. Div. 547............ 115, 362, 478 American Colortype Co. »v. James Reilly’s Sons Co., 47 Misc. 620 .... 45 Ames v. Fargo, 114 App. Div. 666 25, 86, 302, 321, 342 Anable v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 138 App. Div. 380............ 187, 492 Anderson v. Casey Co., 186 App. Div. Anderson v. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 61 Mise. 504............. 353, 385, 528 Anderson ». McMullen, 145 App. Div.. DATS ce vatbsin aha aaginy bata 136, 498 Anderson v. Pelham Hod Elevating Co. & Pelham Operating Co., 129 App. Div. 639......... 78, 184, 364, 412 Anderson ». Milliken Bros., 123 App. Div. 614............212, 418, 487, 504 Andrews v. City of Elmira, 128 App. Div. 699. ......... 12, 45, 313, 433, 463 _ Andrews v. Reinerg,, 112 App. Div. DIR pdics te ay aeyirn mit aR uaa 214 Andrews v. Reinerg, 111 App. Div. BGS ntl olsen Rua aaledae 140, 386 vill, TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Andriuszis v. Phil. & Reading Coal & Tron Co., 143 App. Div. 607. .14, 81, 304, 315, 429, 505 Anglin ». American Construction & Trading Co., 109 App. Div. 237.... 64 Ardolino v. Reinhardt, 130 App. Div. PEG) os ce assiarcitlans wan weeps autate aoe 211, 326 Arnold ». National Starch Co., 121 App. Div. 890................... 85 Arras v. Standard Plaster Co., 121 App. Divs Gl > dncawiadvant es 78, 95, 163, 486 Arthur v. Pullman Co., 44 Misc. 229 25, 178, 322 Aschenback v. Keene, 46 Misc. 600... 290 Atchason »v. United Traction Co., 90 App. Div. 571.......... _. .33, 240, 329 Aubrey ». Hudson Valley R: R. Co., 139 App. Div. 318.............. 318 Austen v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 131 App. Div. 903............ 272, 378, 551 Austin v. Fisher Tanning Co., 96 App. DIV O00 weigh nds e das x 159, 419, 493 Austin v. City of Dunkirk, 140 App. ADDIS AL s uivotassaun te seine la ee pene 217 Austin v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 108 App. Div. 249................ 351, 398 Axelrod v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 87................. 166, 246 Ayres v. 42nd St. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R.,'54 Mise. 639......... 271, 421 _ Azzara v. Nassau Electric R. R., 134 App. Div. 167................ 535, 542 B Babbitt ». Erie R. B. Co., 108 App. Dike PF po cennanets 202, 382, 387, 400 Baccelli 1. D. & H. R. R. Co., 138 App. Div. 623................0.. Baccelli v. North River Stone Co., 133 App. Div. 449. ....... 79, 136, 314, 383 Baccelli ». N. E. Brick Co., 138 App. Dive 656 6 h.o oa hbk a ee eS ees 76 Bacharach ». Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 143 App. Div. 117... ............ 117 Bailey v. Bell Telephone Co., 147 App. Div. 224. ...............182, 144, 530 Baker v. Close et al., 187 App. Div.529 8 Baker ». Empire Wire Co., 102 App. Div 2b ot a amenias cago oaks 123, 184 Baker v. Close, 204 N. Y.92........ 8, 312 Balch ». N. Y. C. & H.R. R. R., 134 App. Div. 1....... 3, 209, 471, 476, 512 Baldwin ». Locomobile Co., 143 App. Baldwin v. Schenectady R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 441............ 46, 467, 494 Ballston Refrigerator Co. ». Eastern States Refrigerator Co., 142 App. ~ Div. 186s es ecaade gages 55, 56, 318 Bambace v. Interurban St. R. R., 188 Bamberg v. International R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 1...49, 180, 238, 407, 541 Bamberg v. International R. R. Co., 53 Misc. 403. ............. 49, 333, 537 Banchetti v. Williams & Co., 75 Misc. DOD cairn dies coda aera ee nies laa 77, 416 Bang v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 128 App. Div. 184........... 239, 377, 551 Bang v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 113 App. Div. 673. ....... 51, 235, 536, 539 Bannon v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 112 App. Div. 552... ......... 137, 191, 390 - Bannon ». Buffalo Union Furnace Co., 109 App. Div. 324............. 85, 318 Barnes ». N. Y.C. & H.R. R.R., 42 Misc. 622........... 171, 185, 200, 480 TABLE OF CASES CITED 1x [References are to Pages] Barr v. Green, 148 App. Div. 897.... 36 Barretto v. Moquin, Offerman, Wells Coal Co., 142 App. Div. 504. .31, 281, 284, 327, 380 Barringer v. United Traction Co., 101 App. Div. 330....... 1... 52, 234, 519 Barry v. Derby Desk Co., 121 App. Die. S10 oz gvssbvsiwsnccascws 212, 372 Barry v. Union R. R. Co., 105 App. Divi $20. cieisee ccc. ea es 256, 276, 322 Barsalou v. Peirce, 109 App. Div. 506 104, 135, 341 Bartle v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 193 N. Y. 362 201, 470 Bartle ». N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 121 App. Div. 72............0005 201, 468 Bartley v. City of N. Y., 102 App. Div. Dob.ceics dese wes ode aasaehes 223, 507 Barth v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 52 Misc. 487... .......... ito 31 Baruth v. Poughkeepsie City & W. F. El. R. R., 89 App. Div. 324. .59, 242, 496 Batchelor ». Degnon Realty & Ter- minal Imp. Co., 141 App. Div. 879 34, 200, 469, 511 Batchelor ». Degnon Realty & Ter- minal Imp. Co., 131 App. Div. 136 34, 201, 319, 326 Bateman v. Rutland R. R. Co., 126 App. Div. 511............. 2, 200, 477 Bauer v. Empire State Dairy Co., 115 App. Div. 71........... Pinaud atass Baumler v. Wilm, 136 App. Div. 857 ‘ 145, 227 Baumann ». Schrumpf, 142 App. Div. bie caussavecn Seaman 121, 125, 490 Bausert v. Thompson-Starrett Co., 126 App. Div. 3382......... 20, 92, 354, 420 Baxter v. Auburn & Syracuse EI. R. R. Co., 190 N. Y. 489........... 271, 422 Bayles v. Plumb, 141 App. Div. 786 6, 378, 399, 530 Bayley v. Curtiss Bros. Lumber Co., 124 App. Div. 496. ....... 227, 443, 514 Beauregard v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 136 App. Div. 834..........,. 15, 141, 361 Beckstein v. Central Star Laundry, 140 App. Div. 8... ...........0.. ‘Becker v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 128 App. Div. 455. .251, 408, ; 451, 523, 525 Becker v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 280................... 322 Beecroft v. N. Y. Athletic Club, 111 App. Div. 392........... 129, 344, 357 Beers v. West Side R. R. Co., 101 App. Div. 308 ....... ey wad 58, 242, 297, 377 Beers v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 88 App. Div. 9................. 166, 245 Beers v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 104 App. Div. 96............. 246, 518 Beirne v. Union R. R. Co. of N. Y., 114 App. Div. 90..... see vae seen sees 264 Belford-v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 43 Mise. 148................4. 58, 518 Belford v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co.; 86 App. Div. 888... ............. 55 Bellegarde v. Union Box & Paper Co., 90 App. Div. 577......58, 375, 389, 515 Bell ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 128 App. Div. 730....... 193, 275, 470, 497 Bell v. City of N. Y., 114 App. Div. 22 75, 86, 131, 304 Beller v. Levy, 68 Misc. 182........ 30 Belt +. DuBois Sons Co., 97 App. Div. B92 ss vena head 3 42, 284, 332, 358, 542 x TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Benjamin v. Village of Tupper Lake, 110 App. Div. 426............ 222, 441 Bente v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 90 Roop Divi 213 see sevewes 169, 262, 322 Berandino ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 186 App. Div. 577... . .61, 495, 502 Beregszazi v. Kreischer Brick Co., 140 App: Div. 1586.0... cides aan ohn 76, 382 Berg v. Horne Co., 146 App. Div. 379 Berger v. Content, 47 Misc. 390. . .222, 398 Berkowitz v. Consolidated Gas Co., 134 App. Div. 389. ....... 261, 332, 542 Berkowsky ». N. Y. City R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 544... . .94, 255, 346, 377 Berler v. Kane, 139 App. Div. 76.... 282 Bernadac v. Schencke Piano Co., 134 Apps Div, 828 4 cere caceceanz 67, 294 Bernreither v. City of N. Y., 123 App. Dit: Bl advintaiwsiseses 219, 305, 433 Bernstein. v. Empire Bridge Co., 146 App. Div. 529............ 32, 284, 552 Berry v. Utica Belt Line R. R., 181 Berthelson ». Gabler, 111 App. Div. 1x abana reeds 215, 496 Bertolami v. United’ Engineering & Cont. Co., 125 App. Div. 584. . 101, 500 Bertolami »v. United Engineering & Cont. Co:, 182 App. Div. 804. .368, 369, 444 Bertolami v. United Engineering & Cont. Co., 198 N. Y. 71.......... Bertolami v. United Engineering & Cont. Co., 120 App. Div. 192. .96, 277, 390, 499 Best ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 117 App. Div. 739... .........065 207, 467 Beyer v. City of New York, 141 App. Divs 670 aa ieee one gx nate end ots 433 Biehl v. Erie R. R. Co., 182 App. Div. 964 ee ee a irceeteed 48, 210, 471, 497 Bilicki v. Staten Island Ship Building Co., 147 App. Div. 687........ 137, 534 Binder v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Mise. 655 oc. ies euns ete es see 269, 421 Binns v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 89 Apps DIV. 359 sacen9. ei eceeaenees 267 Binsell ». Interurban St. R. R. Co., 91 App. Div. 402...............2.+. 58 Birch v. City of New York, 121 App. Di¥: 898 s2..c0 ve ceeacreesed wes 60, 117 Bischoff v. Automobile Touring Co., 97 App. Div. 17............... 41, 388 Bjork v. Post & McCord, 125 App. Div. SL Gig. wees niece celts lsh coke es 105 Black v. Highland Solar Salt Co., 98 App. Div. 409............05. 289, 547 Blair v. Brooklyn, Queens Co. & Sub- urban R. R. Co., 141 App. Div. 843 166, 266, 451, 523 Blair v. Utica & Mohawk Valley R. R., 112 App. Div. 609............ 264, 478 Block v. Sherry, 43 Mise. 342 ... .287, 290 Blumquist v. Snare & Triest Co., 1385 App. Div. 709 .. .184, 286, 345, 391, 502 Boehm v. Hammond & Sloane, 145 App. Div. 511........... 233, 283, 358 Bogendoerfer v. Jacobs, 97 App. Div. BOD ong te aoe aaa} 68, 358, 365 Bohan »v. Metropolitan Express Co., 122 App. Div. 590........... 7, 12, 312 Boice v. Ulster & Del. R. R. Co., 120 App. Div. 643 ........... 189, 339, 531 Boland v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 48 Mise. 523.........0....000c0. cee TABLE OF CASES CITED xi [References are to Pages] Bonert v. L. I. R. R. Co., 145 App. Div. Booth ». Town of Orleans, 147 App. Divs 240 oe os settee ath vee 130, 144, 534 Borsky v. National Lead Co., 139 App. Boston v. Abraham, 91 App. Div. 417 127, 164, 444, 447 Bovee v. International Paper Co., 108 App. Div. 94.......... 60, 87, 301, 456 Bovi v. Hess, 123 App. Div. 389. .27, 158, 354, 402, 527 Bowden v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, 113 App. Div. 788 ............ 86, 131, 385 Bower v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corp., 125 App. Div. 684. . 108, 213, 299, 381, 499, 504 Bowers v. Norwich Pharmacal Co., 124 App. Div. 31. ............. 67, 98, 364 Boyce v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 126 App. Div. 248 . ..268, 377, 400, 490, 514 Boyd v. U. S. Mortgage & Trust Co., 187 N. Y. 262........... 228, 301, 449 Boyd »v. U. 8. Mortgage & Trust Co., 94 App. Div. 413. ......... 19, 301, 484 Boyd v. Shopiro Co., 147 App. Div. Deg fs 2e ates til Saute 124, 183 Boyle v. McNulty Bros., 129 App. Div. BIDS soe ncciels oe 69, 97, 390, 511, 528 Boyle v». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 58 Mise. 50. ...........-. 208, 378, 408 Bradley v. Jaeckel, 65 Misc. 509. .7, 309, 361, 453 Bradley v. Lake Shore Michigan South- em R. R. Co., 145 App. Div. 312 25, 322 Bradner v. Village of Warwick, 91 App. Div. 408............. 3, 127, 298 Bradford v. Banker Bros. Co., 122 App. Div. 523............ 66, 135, 417 Brady v. Pa. Steel Co., 188 App. Div. QS: As Wedsisis a aiardig CAG ewes Sew es 107 Brady v. Pa. Steel Co., 184 App. Div. OU Dee) east neh ait ae tel oe ach a ata ry 107 Brady v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 347............ 192, 468 Brainerd v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R. Co., 132 App. Div. 498........ 194, 470, 471 Branson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 111 App. Div. 787............ 289, 547 Branoner v. Traitel Marble Co., 144 App. Div. 569................... 110 Brand». Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 89 App. Div. 188... ............. 173 Brand v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 95 App. Div. 64. ...2, 53, 448, 536 Braunberg v. Solomon, 102 App. Div. B80) ce aia de SRR e eee 155, 374 Braun v. Union R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 566... ..50, 176, 243, 459, 466, 481 Braun v. Buffalo Gen. Electric Co., 200 Brauner v. 8rd Ave. R. R. Co., 122 App. Div. 572............-.-.0-. ‘ Breed v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 131 App. Div. 492........ 16, 194, 477, 543 Breen v. Gill, 125 App. Div. 642 75,92, 336 Breenan v. Trustees of Village of Bath, 143 App. Div. 740........ 163, 232, 396 Brennan v. City of New York, 130 App. Div. 267........... 111, 230, 438 Brennan ». City of N. Y., 117 App. DiVs 849 soi sinc ceca eae eines 220, 508 Brennan v. City of Albany, 143 App. Div. 752........ 164, 217, 331, 419, 536 Brewster v. Barker, 129 App. Div. 724 7, 266, 310, 514 xii TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Bria v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 183 App. Div. 346..109, 211, 488, 501 Broadbent ». Evening Journal Pub. Co., 147 App. Div. 183........ 122, 375 Brockhauser v. N. Y. C. &. H. R. R. R., 146 App. Div. 413............ Brodsky v. Kronenberg, 145 App. Div. caylee pebacd 159, 211, 407, 455 Brooks v. International R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 555 ............ 13, 235, 520 Brook ». Brooklyn Union Elevated R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 668. .25, 179, 247, 322 Brown v. Goffe, 140 App. Div. D3 ta asian Se ae cate emda 272 Brown »v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 133 App. Div. 276............ 94, 266, 524 Brown v. L. I. R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 649 .........../209, 470, 476, 511 Browne v. Pratt & Letchworth Co., 127 App. Div. 859............ 160, 424 Brown v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 126 App. Div. 240........00. 192, 511, 543 Brown ». City of N. Y., 117 App. Div. LMI) acai air helt tnd ae 2 ee 220 Brown v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 105 App. Div. 395..171, 258, 315, 337, 401, 453, 549 Browne ». N. Y.C. & H. R. R. RaCo., 87 App. Div. 206......... 141, 472, 511 Brown »v. City of Ithaca, 148 App. Div. AT Teseciscotad as xi Sopp caspian tla Mle 290 Bruckel ». Milhau’s Son, 145 App. Div. DOC ited ke tale neste 80 Bruckel v. Milhau’s Son, 116 App. Div. S82 bw ies a etocrsah taapiccas 80, 362, 405, 503 Brudie ». Renault-Freres Selling Branch, 1388 App. Div. 112....... 69 Brundage »v. Fonda, Johnstown & Gloversville R. R. Co., 127 App. Dive 40S sect ates wera erees 175, 237 Brust v. Perkins Co., 113 App. Div. Ges ee eae center 104, 296, 386 Buchanan’s Sons v. ‘Cranford Co., 112 App. Div. 278 2 accuscavenes 4, 232, 350 Buckley v. City of N. Y., 135 App. Div. 512. .163, 232, 379, 434, 444, 446, 453, 517 Buckley v. Beinhauer, 136 App. Div. EAU wie ence ine vere caooeee 367, 425 Buckley v. Garden City Co., 127 App. Dive $3 su densa pusyoceaes 80, 541, 546 Buckley ». N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 142 App DIV: 85 iesw ero saws Buckley v. Westchester Lighting Co., 93 App. Div. 436...... 64, 326, 325, 445 Burke v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 98 App. Div. 219 . 31, 278, 299, 549 Burke v. City and County Contract Co., 133 App. Div. 113.13, 136, 447, 448 Burke v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 109 Apps Div, 72260 seeceeew cies 121, 461 Burke v. Cowen & Co., 130 App. Div. ND oes ree cteec ame 88, 303, 316, 340. Burke ». Erie R. R. Co., 134 App. Div. ALS isin ns anda eee 24, 318, 320, 542° Burke ». International Paper Co., 128 App. Div. 680 ....26, 151, 308, 424, 533 Burke » Frankel, 95 App. Div. OU eare crcetula acl seal! 87, 291 Burke ». Brooklyn Wharf & W. Co., 86 App. Div. 296................ 35: Burlingame v. Dykeman, 121 App. Dive 904 ise ke iontdacitaeream ueersee 70 Burns ». Crow, 128 App. Div. 251 213, 381, 504 TABLE OF CASES CITED xiii [References are to Pages] Burns v. Old Sterling Iron & Mining Co., 188 N. Y.175........... 355, 532 Burns v. N. Y. & L. I. Traction Co., 139 App. Div. 145... ............ 47 Burns v. D. & H. Co., 116 App. Div. Tey scorcieeeen Speer eeea 182, 203, 466 Burnos ». American Sugar Refining Co., 107 App. Div. 286........ 159, 332 Burns v. Palmer, 107 App. Div. Buscher v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 114 App. Div. 85........ 9, 37, 328, 526 Buscher v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 106 App. Div. 493 . . 9, 32, 311, 329, 452 Bushtis ». Catskill Cement Co., 128 App. Div. 780............ 93, 385, 489 Butin ». N. Y.C. & H. R.R.R, 100 Wins Wived2: ds lecsanecasseraws 128 Butler ». Buffalo-Rochester & Pitts- burgh R. R., 142 App. Div. 282 43, 165, 187, 446 Butler v. Village of Oxford, 186 N. Y. Butler ». N. Y. City R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 658... ............ 175, 247 Byrnes v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 148 App. Div. 794............... 188, 242 Cc Caciatore v. Transit Construction Co., 147 App. Div. 676.......... ‘..79, 306 Caddy v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 195 N. Y. 415 ..107, 216, 415, 505, 516, 525 Cadigan v. Glens Falls Gas & Elec. L. Co., 112 App. Div. 751... ..82, 122, 373 Cesar v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 45 Mise. Bilt dak atodnnieleaakoinee ae Caffiv. N. Y.C. & H. R, R. R. Co., 52 Mise: 5(Oui.5 be caigee os veciea dees 190, 355 Callahan ». Munson Steamship Co., 141 App. Div. 791............ 305, 438 Callahan v. Munson Steamship Co., 71 Mi86.:925 32 gx auia seed ee iaees 285, 427 Caminez »v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & Suburban R. R., 127 App. Div. 138 48, 239, 333, 538 Camparetti v. Union R. T. Co. of N. Y. City, 95 App. Div. 66............ Campbell v. L. I. R: R. Co., 127 App. ‘Div. 258......... 27, 112, 335, 370, 371 Campbell ». Kertscher & Co., 146 App. Div. 384............ 158, 393, 394, 415 Cannon v. Fargo, 147 App. Div. 51 195, 472, 535 Cannon v. Fargo, 138 App. Div. LAD sen ease a cian ea Sea Lae esl 93 Canfields ». N. Y. Transportation Co., 128 App. Div. 450.............. 11, 26 Canonico ». Cunard Steamship Co., 49 MUs6): 92 ans esas ewes aie ewe oe we 25 Carey v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 124 App. Div. 524........ 174, 260, 346 Carey v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 50 Misc. 335........ Pays os a Beolaee 63, 459 Carey v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 247............ 63, 486, 545 Carleton v. Union Transfer & Storage Co., 187 App. Div. 225. .......... 24 Carlin ». N. Y., N. H. & H.R. R. Co., 71 Misc. 521... ...46, 285, 301, 409, 515 Carlin v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 137 App. Div. 71 ................ 285 Carlsen ». McKee, 129 App. Div. 652 1138, 463, 528 Carlson ». City of Dunkirk, 138 App. Divs BOB saccig aah eis Salhsd weeamiey XV TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Carmody v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 146 App. Div. 400 .. .171, 202, 552 Carney v. Minnesota Dock Co., 191 IC SNA OI bas terres coe were 102, 462 Carnochan »v. Erie R. R. Co., 73 Mise. Ig th ie meeky oe eeea th euee 189, 472 Carpenter v. City of New York, 115 App. Div. 552........ 81, 341, 405, 447 Carron v. Standard Refrigerator Co., 122 App. Div. 296... .354, 377, 381, 402 Carron v. Standard Refrigerator Co., 138 App. Div. 723..........-. 161, 375 Carr v. Merchants Union Ice Co., 91 App. Div. 162. ..:....31, 278, 325, 460 Carr v. City of N. Y., 121 App. Div. BI Ss ice alan sea henwe hemes ey 435, 508 Carr v. Degnon Cont. Co., 48 Misc. Be hoe areas 129, 222, 355, 507 Carson »v. Village of Dresden, 202 NAY ANA pier cole essen ama 442, 543 Carson v. Village of Dresden, 129 App. DW 728 eo csce hd eh ee 163, 219, 509 Carson »v. Village of Dresden, 137 App. Div. 927 cic 2 tete sh tenia ants Carson v. City of N. Y., 113 App. Div. Oey epee aretha te 221, 362 Carroll v. State of N. Y., 73 Misc. 516 93, 515 Casey v. Davis & Furber Machine Co., 138 App. Div. 396............ Po .110 Casey v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 86......... 92, 344, 464, 510 Cassasa v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 170............ 178, 287 Catterson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 182 App. Div. 399. .202, 321, 334, 452, 471 Causullo ». Lenox Const. Co., 122 App. Div. 672............ 62, 354, 378 Cavanagh »v. Central New England R. R. Co., 181 App. Div. 856. . 194, 369, 528 Ceigler v. Hopper-Morgan Co., 90 App. Div. 379 ....36, 150, 155, 329, 351 Central Brewing Co. v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 49 Mise. 5238........... 51, 459 Chaffee v. Erie R. R. Co., 140 App. Chandler ». Rutland R. R. Co., 140 App. Div. 68... ............. 117, 202 Charters v. Palmer, 113 App. Div. 108 132, 232 Cherbuliez ». Parsons, 59 Misc. 613 3, 142, 343, 399 Chernick »v. Independent American. Ice Cream Co., 66 Misc. 177. .345, 403, 525 Chernick ». Independent American Ice Cream Co., 147 App. Div. 767 94, 283 Chernick v. Independent American Ice Cream Co., 72 Misc. 79....... Chiavaroli v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 131 App. Div. 372. ....... 2138, 428, 504 Chinn ». Ferro Const. Co., 148 App. Div. 368 .......... 22, 90, 325, 428, 503 Chisholm v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 320................... Choyce ». Hopper & Son, 120 App. Div. 177.202.2002... 103, 218, 400, 442 Cholet v. City of Syracuse, 111 App. Div. 1 (Mem.) .................. 71 Christensen v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 184 App. Div. 703. .170, 262, 342, 452 Ciarcia v. Westchester Elec. R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 899..... 49, 238, 421, 537 Citrone ». O’Rourke Engineering Const. Co., 188 N. Y. 339...... 78, 499 TABLE OF CASES CITED {References are to Pages] Citrone »v. O’Rourke Engineering Const. Co., 113 App. Div. 518. .78, 96, 479, 492, 498 Civetti 2. American Hatters & Fur- riers Corp., 124 App. Div. 345. .27, 151, 381, 393 Clancy ». N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. NO erin creda cauaweawe 194, 348, 542 Clancy v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 141. . .193, 323, 550 Clancy v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 569........... 236, 296, 513 Claney ». N. Y., N. H. & H.R. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 235. ...... 343, 356, 541 Clark v. International Paper Co., 139 App. Divi875 «<6 .aveuie rs eka 25, 150 Clark ». Town of Copake, 142 App. PVs 20D: ood psaenecd tee te alte hbk aster 130, 534 Clark ». N, ¥. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 813..... 16, 191, 316, 486 Clark ». Buckmobile Co., 107 App. Clarke ». N. Y. C. & H.R. R. R. Co., 104 App. Div. 167........... 206, 473 Clarke », Welsh, 93 App. Div. B98 cna tel eiuise eta AOA ae aiae oe 145, 184 Clifford ». N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R. Co., 111 App. Div. 809 . . .135, 203, 347 Clinton » Munson Steamship Line, 132 App. Div. 59... ...........-6 116 Clinton ». Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 91 App. Div. 374. ........... 258 Clum »v. Federal Sugar Refining Co., 136 App. Div. 355. i page tata Clyde ». Brooklyn Union Elevated R. R., 148 App. Div. 705........ 183, 253 Coady ». Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 856. ........ 26, 249, 393 XV Cobb v. United Engineering Co., 191 NE Vea Tires ene iuaes 13, 79, 344, 383 Cohen v. Consolidated Gas Co., 137 App. Div. 213................. 82, 367 Cohen ». Koster, 183 App. Div. 570 24, 437 Cohen v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 5. ......... 179, 201, 450 Cohen v. City of N. Y., 144 App. Div. O78 st Bin lacdaumuaarny aki 233, 397 Colaizzi v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 143 App. Div. 638 ............... 191, 467 Colelli v. Turner, 147 App. Div. D0, wccpssunionaeca OP ects Bara 30, 153 Coleman v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 98 App. Div. 349. ........... 206 Collander ». Reardon, 138 App. Div. (BSE eS huceR absmare i Sach dick 130, 288 Collins v. City of Watervliet, 130 App. Div, 29ltns cncgecevctesiawens 180, 433 Collins ». Decker, 120 App. Div. 645 220, 228, 395, 453, 508, 535 Collins ». Waterbury Co., 144 App. Divs 670s. uae ao geaakes 30, 153, 426 Comstock ». Village of Schuylerville, 139 App. Div. 378............ 217, 298 Conklin v. Central N. Y. Telephone & Telegraph Co., 1830 App. Div. 308 62, 273, 348, 363 Conley v. Lackawanna Iron & Steel Co., 94 App. Div. 149......... 216, 415 Connell ». Havey, 125 App. Div. Connell ». N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 144 App. Div. 664............ 191, 497 624 218, 412 Connolly ». Hall & Grant Const. Co., 192 N. Y. 182 ...112, 300, 354, 357, 528 Connolly v. Peterson, 62 Misc. xvi TABLE OF CASES CITED (References are to Pages] Connolly v. Hall & Grant Const. Co., 117 App. Div. 387............. 18, 361 Connor v. Acme Engineering & Const. Co., 148 App. Div. 518........ 154, 376 Connor v. Koch, 89 App. Div. 33. . .66, 99 Connors v. King Line Limited, 98 App. Div. 261... ............. 58, 284 Connors v. Great Northern Elev. Co., 90 App. Div. 311............0. 15, 74 Connors ». Cranford Co., 146 App. Divs D380 sscie sect cut Sera ashame iene 437 Conrad ». N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 137 App. Div. 372... ............ 199 Conroy »v. Acken, 110 App. Div. AG. es Seaeh Ree aiae eeGSE OS 71, 99 Continental Ins. Co. v. N. Y. Gas, etc., Co., 198 N. ¥.186........... 118, 318 Convey v. Finn, 130 App. Div. 440 107, 218, 411, 458 Conway v. Rheims, 107 App. Div. 289 4, 302 Conway v. N. Y. City, 189 App. Div. Conyes v. Oceanic Amusement Co., 202 N. Y. 408........ 95, 274, 491, 495 Coogan »v. Interborough R. T. Co., 50 Mis6.:562 sis weedeat iemyeaiew 264, 450 Coogan v. Interborough R. T. Co., 53 Misc. 647............-.0006- 321, 450 Coolidge ». City of N. Y., 99 App. Div. LOLS ei oe pig en sege ete 18, 223, 429 Cooling v. City of New'York, 148 App. Dive 718. vieesve ds oe ese 9 es 32, 165, 346 Cooper v. Jordan, 135 App. Div. 718 162, 366, 404, 428 Cooper ». Fidelity Development Co., 146 App. Div. 687............. 86, 384 Corbally v. Erie R. R., 97 App. Div. Corcoran v. City of N. Y., 114 App. Div. 12 (Mem.) ................. 11 Corcoran v. Kelly, 61 Misc. 323 3, 142, 397 Cornell v. Harvey, 125 App. Div. 189 38 Corsale ». Facini et al., 60 Misc. 100 31, 241, 318, 327, 525, 526 Cotriss v. Village of Medina, 139 App. Div. 872.......... ig als Gat inactto 3 Courtney v. Niagara Falls Power Co., 138 App. Div. 383.............-. 61 Covit ». Tucker Elec. Const. Co., 65 Mise. 567 «2. ¢¢esauiewes 107, 502, 531 Cox v. D. & H. Co., 128 App. Div. 363 44, 208, 386, 469, 511, 514 Cox v. Mason, 89 App. Div. 219..... 106 Craft ». Peekskill Lighting & R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 878. .......... 2 Craft ». Peekskill Lighting & R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 549........... 2 Cramer v. Klein, 127 App. Div. 146 118, 312 Crammond ». International Paper Co., 116 App. Div. 39. ........... 409 Cranch v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 186 N. Y. 310. ..............00.. 269 Cranch v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 107 App. Div. 341. ....... 269, 466, 473 Crapo v. City of Syracuse, 183 N. Y. OOD sare dnchara de athena aca 81, 431 Crecelius ». City of N. Y., 114 App. Dive: SOL x cena Sania’ 111, 439, 539 Crilley ». New Amsterdam Gas Co., 106 App. Div. 127..........., 138, 531 Crimmins v. United Engineering Cont. Co., 49 Mise. 622... .74, 127, 293. Crissman v. Erie R. R. Co., 123 App. DV Oke spas aerated. sh, Saas 198, 389, 541 Croce v. Buckley, 115 App. Div. 354. 70, 214, 365, 413 TABLE OF CASES CITED Xvii [References are to Pages] Cross ». City of Syracuse, 200 N. Y. BOS a dig bse saat cee Lae alae ae 446 Cross ». City of Syracuse, 129 App. O85 sida roe 110, 218 Croghan v. Hedden Const. Co., 147 App. Div. 681................0.. 67 Croll v. Pullman Co., 61 Misc. 265 12, 812, 460 Crolly v. The Union R. R. Co., 46 IMISC: 24 Ties cusses oh adsl Seats aya are 234 Crowley v. State of N. Y., 99 App. i 8s teres ses reece Alege) 290, 547 Crowley v. Rochester Fireworks Co., 95 App. Div. 13.............. 119, 297 Crowley v. Rochester Fireworks Co., 183 N. Y. 358... 0.22... Gee ates 119 Cunningham »v. Erie R. R. Co., 137 App. Div. 506..-................ 210 Cunningham »v. Sheltering Arms, 135 App. Div. 178. ......... 30, 35, 88, 345 Cunningham »v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. Co., 125 App. Div. " PSS.cec haulers ante ae eka 70, 98, 541 Cunningham »v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 142 App. Div. 303............ 208, 475 Cunningham v. Dady, 191 N. Y. 152 ; 77, 482 Cunningham ». Dady, 119 App. Div. COv ond utshersaenme 74, 481 Cunningham v. Castle, 127 App. Div. Bei y Deca oran ha acancncaie 7, 310, 550 Cunningham »v. Peirce, 112 App. Div. Go rleanersos one 214, 485, 532 Cupp »v. City of Elmira, 126 App. Div. DOO oct wid das A eine whiner ahaa eit 111, 219, 509 Curran v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 347 .. .245, 300, 354, 360, 390 Curran v. Arp, 141 App. Div. 659... 302 Curtis v. Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 147 App. Div. 349...............0..., 42 Curtis Blaisdell Co. ». Ross, 50 Misc. Cushing v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 92 App. Div. 510.......... 53, 234, 448 D Daily v. Distler, 115 App. Div. 102 116, 228, 398 Dair v. N. Y. & P. R. Steamship Co., 204.N. Y. 341....... 117, 286, 391, 428 Dair ». N. Y. & P. R. Steamship Co., 139 App. Div. 751... ............ Dalzell ». N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 136 App. Div. 329......... 23, 189, 480 Daly ». N. Y. City R. R., 182 App. Dive 859 ste ine weer Kora ed 272, 524 Dambmann ». Metropolitan St. R. R., 180 N. Y. 384. 2.0... eee 263 Damjanovic ». Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co., 119 App. Div. 12. .. .137, 304 Damsky v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 52 Danaher v. American Mnfg. Co., 126 App. Div. 385............ 27, 149, 413 Dangelo v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R., 127 App. Div. 835............ 193, 469 Darton v. Interurban Rapid T. Co., 125 App. Div. 836. ....... 245, 291, 336 Date v. N. Y. Glucose Co:, 114 App. Div. 789 ......... ...100, 147, 304, 366 Date v. N. Y. Glucose Co., 104 App. Div: 207 00. eseese es 147, 157, 390, 445 Davenport »v. Oceanic Amusement Co., 182 App. Div. 368 139, 352, 368, 497 Davenport v. Prentice, 126 App. Div. ADE au darcee se satutdatasearegretath ses 313, 410 XVIli TABLE OF CASES CITED {References are to Pages] Davenport v. Matthews, 130 App. Div. Davidson ». City of N. Y., 183 App. Dive B58 oo eo sek 111, 218, 434, 517 Davison v. D. L. & W. R. R., 184 App. DW. 802.42 5 ene s toed eine ae 2, 200, 471 Davis v. Martin, 111 App. Div. 411 215, 318, 367 Davis ». Bouton Motor Co., 126 App. Divi 0a saoveda erences 22, 118 Davis-v. Maxwell, 108 App. Div. 128 2, 10, 311 Davis v. Gas Engine & Power Co., 148 App. Div. 791............. 22, 90, 534 Davitt v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 106 App. Div. 567........... 147, 317, 485 Dayton ». B. H. R. R. Co., 119 App. Davy v. Lyons, 71 Mise. 1389........ DeAgramonte v. City of Mt. Vernon, 123 App. Div. 717......... 84, 119, 383 DeAgramonte v. City of Mt. Vernon, 112 App. Div. 291. ....... 119, 419, 432 Dean ». T. W. P. & M. R. R., 118 App. Div. 487............... 177, 250 Dearing v. Ind. Union Telephone Co., 145 App. Div. 152............ 273, 306 DeBock v. American Bridge Co., 131 App. Div. 480....... 110, 144, 294, 303 Decora v. American Carbide Co., 136 App. Div. 52. s 162, 367, 386, 402, 456, 513 Decora v. Rutland R. R. Co., 142 App. Div. O14 visi cuca sieve aoeeavacs 118 Decker v. City of N. Y., 147 App. Div. COL eb nee ee ibe pedal oes 278 Decker v. Osterweil, 144 App. Div. 653 146 Deebach v. Gair Co., 143 App. Div. 489 o) asecnihsa ise ae ie 66, 365, 494 Deegan »v. Gutta Percha & Rubber Mfg. Co., 1381 App. Div. 101. . .150, 352 Deerpark Brewing Co. v. Port Jervis W. W. Co., 129 App. Div. 420.... 290 Delaney v. City of Mt. Vernon, 89 App. Divs 209 vee desavewivers 224, 344 Dempsey v. Eberspacher, 131 App. Div: 285). eyh se tates 342 Dempsey ». Brooklyn Heights R. R., 98 App. Div. 182.............. 37, 241 Dempsey »v. City of N. Y., 141 App. Div: 567 occa veer ccna 218, 294, 509 DeNapoli v. N. Y.. N. H. & H.R. R., 136 App. Div. 334... ............ 195 Denarest v. 42nd St. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R., 109 App- Div. 508......... 52 Dennison v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 98 App. Div. 399... ............ 203, 289 Depew v. N. Y. City R. R., 112 App. Divs 260.) « gisuecadnen tesa 256, 520 Derby v. Degnon-McLean Contract- ing Co., 112 App. Div. 324... .129, 221 DeSantes v. N. Y., N. H. & H.R. R., 119 App. Div. 95... 0.2.0.2... 186 DesMoineaux v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 848. ........ 46, 349, 402 Desmond 2. Foundation Co., 142 App. DIVE 580 site's sek. Reine niacin 101, 134 Desure v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 94 App. Div. 251................... 18 Devine v. Brooklyn H. R. R., 131 App. Div. 142..............0...,. 348 Devine v. National Wall Paper Co., 95 App. Div. 194............. 5, 229, 418 Devine v. Alphons Custodis Chimney Const. Co., 126 App. Div. 7. ..101, 528 Devine ». Hayward, 128 App. Div. 705 114, 528 TABLE OF CASES CITED xix {References are to Pages] Deyo v. Kingston Consolidated R. R. Co., 94 App. Div. 578......... 120, 388 Dickerman v. Weeks, 108 App. Div. OOF Lio is Soe ea regs a 222, 507 Dickinson »v. Platt, 116 App. Div. 651 38, 395 Dillon ». National Coal Tar Co., 181 ING Ve 21 Sie eens ban nla ag os 153, 355 Dilluvio v. City of N. Y., 73 Misc. 122 164, 247, 430 DiMarco »v. Isaac, 74 Misc. 459. . . 183, 225 DiNapoli v. N. Y., N. H. & H.R. R., 136 App. Div. 334... ............ Dippolito v. Brown, 148 App. Div. 116 82, 376 DiSanto v. Brooklyn Chair Co., 140 App. Div. 119................... DiSario v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R. Co., 142 App. Div. 159... ............ Distefeno v. Peekskill Lighting & R. R. Co., 107 App. Div. 293. .......... 82 Dittman v. Edison Electric Titurninat- ing Co., 87 App. Div. 68. . 138, 158, 406, 455 Dittman »v. Edison Electric Ill. Co., 125 App. Div. 691... .136, 149, 405, 424, 482 Dittman v. Edison Electric Tlumina- tion Co., 144 App. Div. 632... . 149, 382 Ditmar v. Brooklyn H. R. R., 91 App. Dine biesoaeeneend: 179, 257 Ditollo ». Erie R. R., 126 App. Div. 192 Dixon ». N. Y. O. & W. R. R., 198 ING Ys Scc5 Sereneaeh een 91, 204, 488 Doctoroff v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 55 Misc. 216...........- 49, 238, 282, 537 Doering v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 42 Mise, 192)... ce cseesctcadame 171, 257 Dolan v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co., 105 App. Div. 366... .106, 361, 382, 531 Dolan v. Long Island R. R. Co., 144 App. Div. 684................... Dolfine v. Erie R. R. Co., 178 N. Y.1 205, 378 Donahue ». Keystone Gas Co., 90 App. Div. 386 ....... 123, 315, 351, 397 Donaldson v. Brooklyn H. R. R., 129 App. Div. 433... ......... 247, 380, 424 Donnelly v. Katz, 133 App. Div. Dooley v. Union R. R. Co., 106 App. Div¥:.397 o.. eaddnb-$8e 4b a aaans Dooley v. Healey, 95 App. Div. 271 42, 284 Dooling ». City of N. Y., 148 App. Div. UA Aen cneGeedaten 32, 165, 346, 437 Dorff v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 95 App. Div. 82............ 173, 255, 439 Dorn v. Snare & Triest Co., 62 Misc. 209s iss stots. avn ets meuslae ess 134, 434 Dougherty v. City of N. Y., 146 App. Dive 020 reseGwons ohacoiaae 76, 225, 341 Dougherty v. Weeks & Son, 126 App. Die GBs cecscesc 100, 146, 316, 317 Dougherty v. Westinghouse ef al., 124 App. Div. 894................ 76, 101 Douglass v. Hewson, 142 App. Div. Douglas ». Metropolitan St. R. R., 119 App. Div. 804. Douglas v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 119 App. Div. 203 ............... 324, 540 Dowdell v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 198 XX TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Dowling ». B. H. R. R. Co., 107 App. Dive:31 2h oats ieee pws 64, 519, 539 Downes v. Elmira Bridge Co., 179 Ages Diy. 186 in vosere denn cee! 21, 29 Doyle rv. Foster, 128 App. Div. 279 45, 230 Drago v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 189 App: Div; 82835 cs sig.sec tease ax Draper v. Interborough R. T. Co., 124 App. Div. 351 ... .43, 239, 305, 480, 546 Dresch v. Elliott, 137 App. Div. 252 150, 455 Droge v. John N. Robins Co., 123 App. Dive 50 sa cuveusese: 117, 126, 371, 372 Dubnow ». N. Y. City R. R., 122 App. Te se ees 172, 260, 324 Dudley v. Abraham, 122 App. Div. 480 121, 442 Dudley v. Raymond, 148 App. Div. S86 ich eet aaad oad ee eeebealsd 9 Duerr v. Consolidated Gas Co., 86 Apps Div. Wu iccochcutsusecs 123, 306 Duffghe v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 109 App. Div. 603... .......2..... 51, 520 Duffy v. Interurban St. R. R., 52 IMGSC TIT ccc a a Sa wle oe need 269, 513 Duhme v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 107 App. Div. 237.15, 285, 438, 539 Duhme v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 184 N. Y. 404. 2.0.22... 285, 481 Dulfer ». Brooklyn H. R. R., 115 App. Divs670 ci nenegeaeteness 55, 244, 461 Dunn v. N. Y. C. R. R., 138 App. Div. Sido y See Reeas Hye’ -. .187, 225 Dunn v. Empire Engineering Co., 147 Apps Div. 287 22020 oe scec deans. 55 Dunne vz. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 99 App. Div. 571 ...169, 201, 347, 449, 466 Dunstan v. City of N. Y., 91 App. Div. BOD. eon ve eee ea has oe Same PRS ees 285 Dupont ». Village of Port Chester, 204 N, Ys 851. 2 osacaw, 164, 233, 306, 510 Durkee v. Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 122 App. Div. 278. ........ 46, 238, 521 Durkos v. Chelsea Jute Mills, 120 App. Tel oa ahha se 159, 409, 494 Durfield v. City of N. Y., 101 App. Div. 581..........-- 132, 182, 355, 379 Durr v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 184 Dutcher v. Rockland Elec. Co., 123 App. Div. 765... .62, 273, 343, 390, 427, 487 Dwyer »v. Slattery, 118 App. Div. 345 15, 80, 314 Dwyer Ni oC & H.R: RR, 198 App. Div. 87 ..... 93, 201, 365, 380, 471 Dwyer v. A. & 8. El. R. R., 181 App. Div. 477........ 166, 260, 452, 514, 523 Dyer v. Radermacher, 147 App. Div. AS ose ieyd'e eey ee apis eda kapha ere wae Ad 30 E Eagen v. Buffalo Union Terminal R. R. Co., 200 N. Y. 478 .. . .225, 244, 331 Eager v. Lehigh & Hudson River R. R., 122 App. Div. 905............ 40 Earle v. Clyde Steamship Co., 103 App. Div. 21........ 116, 285, 497, 498 Earle ». Clyde Steamship Co., 43 Mise. 535........... 117, 232, 284, 435 Eaton v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R.R., 195 NwY 268 osceicee ce deeve 136, 294, 483 Eaton v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 125 App. Div. 54... ........0.0., 208, 482 TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Ebbitt v. Milliken, 103 App. Div. 211 361, 531 Edgar v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 146 App. Div. 541 .. .245, 375, 427, 495, 503 Edwards » N. J. & H. R. R. R. & Ferry Co., 144 App. Div. D4 oss pode yeeede ee sages 247, 545 Egg v. Rochester R. R. Co., 115 App. - Div. 804....,....... 170, 259, 324, 540 Eggleston v. Town of Chautauqua, a) App. Div. 314............ 18, 430, 534 Ehrenfried v. Lackawanna Iron & Steel Co., 89 App. Div. 180.......... 88, 485 Eldridge v. Terry & Tench Co., 145 App. Div. 560............. 22, 90, 548 Ellefson v. Singer, 132 App. Div. 89 134, 316, 406 Elliott ». Brooklyn Heights R. R., 127 App. Div. 300............ 46, 483, 522 Elis v. N. Y. City R. R. & Park & Til- ford Co., 127 App. Div. 328... .181, 250, 397 Ellsworth v. Franklin Co. Agricultural Socy., 99 App. Div. 119 88, 299, 344, 359 Emni v. Ryan-Parker Const. Co., 184 App. Div. 482............... 113, 313 Enders v. Brooklyn Union Elevated R. R. Co., 181 App. Div. 170. .39, 237, 476 Endres »v. International R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 785 ........ 62, 176, 251, 523 Engel v. United Traction Co., 203 Nis ¥ B21] xivass weedes doce 10, 237, 525 Englehardt v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 52 Mise. 474............. 172, 259, 450 Englehardt v. Central N. E. R. R., 139 App. Div. 786.............00.05. 197 Engler v. International R. R., 138 App. Div. 659................-.. English ». Kwint, 140 App. Div. 509. 217 English v. Milliken Brothers, 182 App. Div. 501............ 113, 133, 390, 529 Epstein v. Interborough R. T. Co., 52 MISC. 184 vacien cGedsd shee 216, 382 Epstein ». Brooklyn, Queens Co. & Suburban St. R. R. Co., 147 App. Erjauschek v. Kramer, 141 App. Div. DAO saa ale wiles eale evar adnate 11, 309, 389 Ervin v. Woodruff, 119 App. Div. 603 4, 302 Esposito v. Rock Plaster Co., 141 App. DIV. 751i ah sis- ssw aecewnee 449, 542 Estabrook ». Newburgh Light, Heat Co., 141 App. Div. 62, 362 Ettlinger v. City of N. Y., 58 Misc. 229 460, 547 Evans v. Eastman Kodak Co., 129 App. Div. 768... .26, 150, 360, 390, 425, 489 Evans v. Pearson & Son (Inc.), 125 App. Div. 666 ..... 75, 78, 275, 436, 533 & Power F Fagan v. Wells Bros. Co., 63 Misc. 337 88, 291, 501 Faha ». Wynkoop Hallenbeck & Craw- ford & Co., 72 Misc. 391......... » Fahey v. New Amsterdam Gas Co., 134 App. Div. 611..... 59, 110, 307, 319 Fahlbusch v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 145 App. Div. 544. .......... 538 Fahner v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 86 App. Div. 488. ......... 60, 204, 298 Faith v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 222............ 104, 375 Xxii TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Falk v. Havemeyer, 123 App. Div. 657 27, 73, 527 Fallon v. Mertz, 110 App. Div. 755 57, 324, 389 Famularo ». Oil Well Supply Co., 56 Mis 270i5.5.0. has Raed eats 103, 511 Fancher v. Fonda Johnstown & Glov- ersville R. R.Co., 111 App. Div.4 51 Fanizzi ». N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R. Co., 113 App. Div. 440... .172, 257, 461, 493 Farber v. Roginsky, 123 App. Div. 38 142, 301 Farley v. White Engineering Co., 131 App. Div. 228. .91, 353, 366, 404, 427, 501, 528, 533 Farrell v. City of N. Y., 113 App. Div. O80 oe adrceh nee oddhea eyes 127, 396 Farrell v. Town of North Elba, 112 App. Div. 144............ 18, 132, 297 Farrell v. Town of North Salem, 139 App, Divi 164: os arecsna eae ian ees Fasani v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 404... ............ Faudington v. Erie R. R. Co., 136 Nap Dine Wiis ce eek 195, 380, 542 Fay »v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 375... ............ Feder v. Friedman, 71 Mise. 134 101, 18% 225, 482 Feinstein v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 180 App. Div. 258 . . ..34, 268, 523 Feldheim v. Brooklyn, Queens Co. R. R. Co., 122 App. Div. 883... . .250, 451 Feldman ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 142 App. Div. 339........ 196, 468 Feola ». Orange Co. Road Construc- tion Co., 129 App. Div. 435. .100, 239, 361, 489, 500 Ferguson v. Village of Waverly, 128 App. Div. 697....... 111, 219, 433, 509 Ferrick v. Eidlitz, 195 N. Y. 248. .89, 210, 319, 379, 483 Ferrick v. Eidlitz, 123 App. Div. 587 ’ 19, 460, 480 Ferris v. Interurban St. R. R., 89 App. Divi sOlee tune ae ae 170, 257 Field ». N. Y. C. & H.R. R. R. Co., 86 + App. Div: 148.006 escuee5 cena 44, 188 Fiesel ». N. Y. Edison Co., 123 App. Divs: 606.4) venvaw ientegemeeee 65, 67 Filbert ». N. Y.. N. H. & H.R. R. R. Co., 95 App. Div. 199. ........... 44 Filippone v. Reisenburger, 135 App. DAOC os sas Bacrace aloe ates 75, 93, 340 Filippo ». American Bill Posting Co., USS Ne Yo 514s os neta 8 103, 417 Finan v. Valvoline Oil Co. & Erie R. R. Co., 51 Misc. 292.......... 189, 467 Fine v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 45 M80 587 sows acer eaedew tees 258, 461 Fink v. Hartog & Beinhauer Candy Co., 112 App. Div. 387.......... 71, 98 Finkelstein v. Kramer, 133 App. Div. . DOD seas Spooks 162, 211, 348, 352, 368, 488 Finkle v. Bolton Landing Lumber Co., 148 App. Div. 500. . .122, 157, 211, 394, 465 Finnegan v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 124 App. Div. 117... ............ Finnegan ». Robinson Co., 124 App. Finnigan v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 194 IN 5 Ms AE oo a gue a sh ey Finnigan v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 122 App. Div. 712... 0.........0.. 81, 372 Fiori v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 98 App Div. 49 TABLE OF CASES CITED xxiii {References are to Pages] Fischel v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 116... .171, 259, 320, 324 Fish ». Waverly E. L. & Power Co., 189 N. Y. 336 ... .65, 103, 319, 363, 381 Fish v. Utica Steam & Mohawk Valley Cotton Mills, 109 App. Div. 326 153, 305, 328, 439, 538 Fisher ». Central Vermont R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 446........ 207, 438, 550 Fisher ». N. Y. City R. R. Co., 50 Mise: (62216 oie eats axes oon wees 235 Fisher v. Cent. Vermont R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 449............ 207, 474 Fisher v. N. Y. Dock Co., 91 App. Div. D2G hod dlecaasosoded dasieds 44, 94, 278 Fisher v. Union R. R. Co. of N. Y. City, 86 App. Div. BODe care ee Wen Ses eee seane 54, 179, 181 Fitzgerald v. Goldstein, 56 Misc. 677 288, 442, 547 Fitzgerald ». Brooklyn Heights R. R.., 118 App. Div. 3 (Mem.) ... ...270, 521 _ Fitzgerald ». Newton Falls Paper Co., 204 N. Y. 184............ 90, 161, 415 Flanagan v. Goldberg, 137 App. Div. OF os cule lu toaulaaieeencele 186, 274 Flanagan v. Carlin Const. Co., 134 App. Div. 236. .112, 334, 408, 411, 444, 502 Flansburg v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 136 App. Div. 551......... 68, 198, 472 Fleming v. Tuttle, 98 App. Div. 222 : 38, 140, 338, 401 Fluker ». Zeigele Brewing Co., 201 N. Y. 40........ 109, 160, 230, 447, 517 Flux v. Bellew-Merritt Co., 138 App. Flynn v. Joline, 185 App. Div. 291 262, 514, 524 Flynn »v. Interborough R. T. Co., 48 MISC. S20 iis aire stea dicta wien ese 78 Foahka v. Wynkoop, Hallenbeck & Cranford Co., 72 Misc. 391. Foden v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 136 App. Div. 765........ Soran tied uth Foley v. 42nd St., St. N. Ave & Man- hattanville R. R., 49 Misc. 649. ..10, 42 Foley v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., LOT N, ¥ 4805 on ieicee eeex eee bee 476 Foley ». N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R. Co., 132 App. Div. 506... .209, 282, 368, 476 Forbrick v. General Elec. Co., 45 Misc. Ford v. Arbuckle, 107 App. Div. 221.. 138 Ford ». Adams Dry Goods Co., 121 App. Div. 895................... 73 Forton v. Crosstown Street R. R., 137 App. Div. 420... ...........5. 45, 261 Forton v. Crosstown St. R. R. Co., 63 Misc. 237............ 48, 239, 437, 478 Fortune »v. Hall, 122 App. Div. 250 28, 151, 413 Foster v. Crooker Co., 142 App. Div. 268 chivas ake ee 56, 348, 371, 491, 500 Fouquet ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 123 App. Div. 804............... 73 Fouquet v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 53 Mise. 121. ............. 73, 364, 366 Fox v. Warner Quinlan Asphalt Co., 139 App. Div. 807... ............ 74 Fox v. Warner Quinlan Asphalt Co., 204.N. Y. 240............ 76, 148, 416 Frahm ». Siegel-Cooper Co., 131 App. Div. 747. .66, 180, 298, 363, 443, 446, 483, 535 France v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 550... ........+... XXIV TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Franck ». American Tartar Co., 91 App. Div. 571............ 84, 406, 498 Franco v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 108 App. Div. 14.............. 37, 269 Frank »v. City of Rome, 125 App. Div. TA cop ate os elgsecoes ieee . 164, 289 Frank ». Warsaw, 198 N. Y. 463.... 84 Frank ». Simon, 109 App. Div. 38 287, 418 Frank v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 91 App. Div. 485.............. 53, 181 Freel ». Chrome Steel Works, 114 App. Div. 18 (Mem.)............ 57 Freeland v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 651......... 51, 234 Freeland ». Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 43 Misc. 132. ............... 53 Freeman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 87 App. Div. 127. ......... 54, 516, 518 Freemont v. Boston & Maine R. R. Co., 111 App. Div. 831 17, 188, 406, 493 Freibaum »v. Brady, 143 App. Div. 220 7, 310, 366 Friedman ». City of N. Y., 63 Mise. B1Ov ite see ease ay 1, 218, 293, 294, 510 Fritsch », N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 93 App. Div. 554. ......... 33, 240, 518 Froelich v. N. Y. City, 199 N. Y. Froehlich ». Interborough R. T.4Co., 120 App. Div. 474... .244, 287, 545, 546 Frost v. Port Chester, 139 App. Div. Fullerton v. Glens Falls Gas & Elec. L. Co., 148 App. Div. 481. .......... 123 Furlong v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 103 App. Div. 215.............4. Furst v. Zucker, 125 App. Div. 591 36, 219, 336, 445 Gaebler v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 130 App. Div. 881. ....... 262, 524, 551 Gaebler v. Gallo, 198 N. Y. 344....79, 127 Gaetjens v. City of N. Y., 132 App. Div. 394...... iin Mamata 434 Gaetjens v. City of New York, 146 App. Div. 495) gc ees ae esceee news 65 Galino v. Fleischman Realty Co., 130 App. Div. 605............ 72, 226, 512 Gallagher ». N. Y. City R. R. Co., 124 App. Div. 868............ 33, 241, 516 Gallagher v. Newman, 190 N. Y. 444 28, 158 Gallenkamp v. Garvin Machine Co., 91 App. Div. 141............ 74, 330, 422 Gallo »v. Dunn, 71 Mise. 132. .136, 275, 372, 413 Ganguzza v. Anchor Line, 97 App. DIV 182 occ Sichlans teeta blvd ahig woes 141, 284 Gardner »v. Westinghouse Elec. & Gen. Mnfg. Co., 141 App. Div. 5. .100, 146, 357, 464 Gardner v. Schenectady R. R. Co., 128 App Divs 12) iy usenet ees 62, 443 Gardner v. Schenectady R. R. Co., 113 App. Div. 183. ........... 63, 344, 345 Garner v. 42nd St. R. R. Co., 56 Misc. BOON sree sate ie als baeee 260, 451, 522 Garrett ». Somerville, 98 App. Div. 206; rience naedbetaaes wea aes 92, 145 Gartland v. N. Y. Zoological Socy., 135 App. Div. 168................... 365 Garvey v. Namm, 136 App. Div. B15 2.5 as Riise ads Geel a ee 162 Gatens v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 89 App. Div. 311............... 173, 255 Gedroice v. City of N. Y., 109 App. DIVEVLO us eters Gare nae ee on: 11, 129 TABLE OF CASES CITED XXV {References are to Pages] Geer v. N. Y. & Pennsylvania Tel. & Telegraph Co., 144 App. Div. B74 aco seers gcse erste 65: Geisendorfer ». Union R. R., 124 App. DIG 090 cere wie SOR a 48, 281, 522 Gelderman v. Curtis, 120 App. Div. MOD oii dik ae he tale dkeoeeyy 31, 144, 280 Geleta v. Buffalo & Niagara Falls Elec. R. R., 88 App. Div. 372.......... 54 Gelof v. Morgenroth et al., 1830 App. DVS Ufivse sawed Gea weeds 417 Genovesia v. Pelham Operating Co., 130 App. Div. 200. ........... 364, 541 Geoghegan v. Union R. R. Co. of N. Y. City, 122 App. Div. 646........ 48, 238 Gerber v. Boorstein, 113 App. Div. 808 31, 328, 525 German v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 107 App. Div. 354... .178, 252, 305, 337 German American Ins. Co. v. N. Y. Gas & Elec. Co., 103 App. Div. 310 64, 118, 382, 388 Gerome v. Hawley, 147 App. Div. 475 6,13 Gibbons ». Lehigh Valley R. R., 122 App. Div. 87. ....... 198, 409, 435, 455 Gilfillan ». German Hospital & Dis- pensary in N. Y., 115 App. Div. 48 98, 185, 355, 366 Gillen ». McAllister, 97 App. Div. 310 106, 376 Gillespie v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 87 App. DIV iS Sisce le eased wed a 169, 175, 233 Giltman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 129 App. Div. 654. ....... 175, 239, 551 Giovagnioli v. Fort Orange Construc- . tion Co., 148 App. Div. 489... .22, 156 Girshoff ». Marx & Jacobson, 140 App. Divs 886. ocnseewecceins Bese 155, 367 Glasgow v. Jordan, 124 App. Div. 488 19, 114, 181, 317, 436 Gleason ». Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 143 App. Div. 884........ 264, 401, 454 Gleason v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., - 99 App. Div. 209..... 255, 258, 347, 378 Glennon 2. Star Co., 180 App. Div. 491 93, 342, 346, 501 Glennon v. Erie R. R., 86 App. Div. DDT erie Ba eny cute eee oad 338, 510 Glynn v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 125 App. Div. 186............... 334, 371 Godfrey v. City of N. Y., 104 App. DIV BOTs aca s dhecle nanos 129, 396, 431 Goldberg v. Graham, 146 App. Div. DOM ois a devas 36, 76, 185, 329, 330, 356 Goldberg v. Herman, 136 App. Div. Goldkranz v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co.,'89 App. Div. 590............ 54 Goldstein v. Werbelovsky, 141 App. Divs 136 oi aehevees aap as 124, 149, 389 Goldstein ». Wolkenburg, 54 Misc. 545 55, 98, 399, 400 Goldstein v. Levy, 74 Misc. 463...... 227 Goller ». Fonda Johnstown & Glovers- ville R. R., 110 App. Div. 620. .177, 204, 247 Gombert ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 195 N. Y. 2738... ........... Gombert v. McKay, 201 N. Y. 27 212, 411, 488 Goodhines v. Chase, 100 App. Div. 87 84, 343 Goodkin v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 93 App. Div. 153................04. Goold v. N. Y., N. H. & H.R. R. R. Co., 59 Mise. 36.......... 24, 176, 468 Gordon »v. Ashley, 191 N. Y. 186 .62, 550 XXVi " TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Gorman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 131 App. Div. 207..55, 199, 275, 353, 366 Gorman v. N. Y. Chicago & St. L. R. R., 194 N. Y. 488.... .48, 179, 476, 512 Gorman »v. Millikan, 142 App. Div. 207 114, 371, 491 Gorman 2. Milliken, 42 Misc. 336.... 371 Gormley ». 42nd St. R. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R., 116 App. Div. 155. .50, 236, 540 Gorney v. City of N. Y., 102 App. Div. OV a i waeued manewed haaedulnes 143, 431 Gott v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 110 App. Div. 18... .............. 46, 246 Gozzett v. Plaut, 121 App. Div. 513 80, 308 Grabler v. N. Y. & East R. Ferry Co., 64 Misc. 58........... 24, 112, 180, 321 Graham v. Bauland Co., 97 App. Div. Blaine 229, 338, 401, 453, 454 Graham ». City of New Rochelle, 120 App. Div. 414........... 128, 220, 508 Graham ». VanHauten, 53 Misc. 643 21, 103, 486, 499 Grant v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 99 App. Div. 422.............. 52, 180 Grant v. National R. R. Spring Co., 100 App, Divi B84. 0 6 saciergcews 403 Grathwohl v. N. Y. C. & H. R. RR, 116 App. Div. 176............ 199, 467 Graves v. Stickley Co., 125 App. Div. V2 eee aa aac 125, 160, 371, 491 Gravey »v. City of N. Y., 117 App. Div. 1 One ae ere £217, 506 Gray v. City of N. Y., 137.App. Div. 31 Gcoia mer ads sey eessoatwaneees 127 Gray v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 187 N. Y. B76 we aed aa ere ge ee Caw be 70, 364: Gray v. Weir, 113 App. Div. 479. .94, 172, 401, 461 Grealish v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & Suburban R. R. Co., 130 App. Div. BIG a spe nen ena dicta cue 32, 241, 326 Greco v. Pratt Chuck Co., 127 App. DIVE TOS cohen Aten Naa Rebar ttats 151, 402 Greehy v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 211............ 264, 539 Greeley v. State of N. Y., 94 App. Div. 605... ..... Hin Gates hone des 290, 547 Greenfield v. Doepfner, 49 Misc. 651 116, 228 Green v. Urban Contracting & Heating Co., 106 App. Div. 460 .. . .74, 364, 365 Green v. Long Island R. R., 181 App. ere uese ares 41, 209, 294 Green v. N. Y.O. & W. R. R., 102 App. Div, B02 vb aseiecuccensaanooe 196, 337 Greene v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 100 App. Div. 803................... Greener v. General Elec. Co., 147 App. DIV AG 28 cath pentrn 2 uate ser ends Greer v. Union R. R. Co., 50 Mise. 560 94, 257 Gregory v. Elmira W. L. & R. R. Co., I90)N. ¥ 363% i weak eeeesn 250, 321 Grief ». Buffalo & El. & R. R. R. Co., 205 N.Y. 239... ................ 65 Griffin v. Frank, 132 App. Div. 334 118, 149, 404, 483 Griffin v. Bell, 119 App. Div. 673..... 142 Griffin v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 46 MiS¢, 3285 ockesc tawcnaes 18, 359, 538 Griffin ». N. Y. Telephone Co., 141 App. Div. 1......... 118, 274, 404, 497 Griffith ». Long Island R. R., 147 App. Div. 698 vse Sbesaciweneeen ss 207, 357 TABLE OF CASES CITED XXvli [References are to Pages] Grissinger v. International R. R. Co., 143 App. Div. 681... ............ Groell v. Ast, 145 App. Div. 154..... Grogan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 97 App. Div. 413 ............... 178, 252 Grogan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 107 App. Div. 254....... 178, 252, 407, 409 Gross v. Foster, 134 App. Div. 243 9, 82, 309, 334 Grube v. Hamburg-American Steam- ship Co., 176 N. Y. 383......... 43, 284 Gruner v. Texas Company, 133 App. Divs 413 .c0ccedsn ces 107, 212, 411, 505 Grunfelder v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 143 App. Div. 89..... 167, 266, 398, 451 “Guilmartin v. Solvay Process Co., 189 Ny Olle bee ee ioe 151, 360 ‘Guilmartin v. Solvay Process Co., 115 App. Div. 794............... 148, 152 Gullery 2. MacGuire, 75 Misc. 125... 8 Gunderson v. Eastern Brewing Co., 71 Mise. 519. .......... 143, 280, 366, 537 Gunther v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 45 Mise. 117...............-. 169, 263 Gustafson v. Young, 91 App. Div. 433 : 19, 298 H Haack v. Brooklyn Labor Lyceum As- sociation, 44 Misc. 273. . ..117, 287, 420 Haack v. Brooklyn Labor Lyceum As- sociation, 93 App. Div. 491....... 21 Hack ». Dady, 134 App. Div. 253... 347 Hack v. Dady, 142 App. Div. 510. .56, 349 Hackett v. Koehler & Co., 140 App. Div. 448... ..........2.. estan 65, 347 Haggblad v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 117 App. Div. 838. ...141, 481, 504,515 Hahn v. Conried Metropolitan Opera House, 126 App. Div. 815 ...... 19, 114 Haigh v. Edelmeyer & Morgan Hod Elev. Co., 186 App. Div. 484... .69, 404 Haigh ». Edelmeyer & Morgan Hod Elevator Co., 123 App. Div. 376 67, 364 Haley v. Solvay Process Co., 127 App. Divs 753.44 case ecies. eden ans 85, 370 Hall ». N. Y., N. H. & H.R. R., 121 App. Div. 488............ 81, 341, 383 Hall ». Cayuga Lake Cement Co., 111 App. Div. 801................... Hallett ». Liebmanns Sons Brewing Co., 129 App. Div. 617 31, 281, 408, 440 Hallock v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R. Co., 197 N. Y. 450........... 195, 316, 471 Halloway v. McWilliams, 97 App. Div. O06 ee Geta leans Se ahaa 215, 503 Halsch v. J. B. & J. M. Cornell, 49 Mae 69922 ansouseriveenewes 21, 104 Hammerschmidt »v. Municipal Gas Co., 114 App. Div. 290........ 122, 459 Hammond ». D. L. & W. R. R., 140 App. Div. 810............ 43, 187, 471 Hammond v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 136 App. Div. 100. .107, 212, 334, 380, 384 Hamnstrown v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 122 App. Div. 48. ........ 140, 336, 457 Hanau v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 103 App. Div. 402............ 171, 258 Haney v. City of New York, 126 App. Div 908. cuwiencegreketawees 17, 109 Hanley v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 127 App. Div, S55... og ces 323, 451, 541 Hanlon v. Central R. R. of N. J., 187 HONS Nodes dais esem cmd 167, 201, 450, 467 Hanna v. Pitt & Scott, (Limited), 121. App. Div. 420... ............. 57, 821 XXVili TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Hanney v. Wren, 105 App. Div. 59 . 5 Hanselman v. Broad, 113 App. Div. PAP Si Tosh aaa ds 104, 296, 418, 441 Hanson v. John W. Whalen e¢ al., 110 App: Divs 703.0c.0 ve neeecyees 51, 244 Hanson v. Hogan, 61 Mise. 95 26, 140, 436 Harkins v. Queens Insurance Co., 106 App. Div. 170............ 68, 297, 409 Harman ». City of New York, 148 App. Div. 61..... 165, 183, 233, 434, 445, 518 Harning v. Hudson R. Telephone Co., 111 App. Div. 122............. 63, 273 Harris v. Baltimore Machine & Ele- vator Co., 112 App. Div. 389..... 68 Harris v. Baltimore Machine & Ele- vator Works, 188 N. Y. 141. .68, 337, 373 Harrison v. N. Y. C. & H. R. RB. R., 127 App. Div. 804........ 16, 200, 316, 469 Harrison ». N. Y. C. & H. R. RB. R., 195 N.Y. 86......... 16, 194, 295, 470 Hart v. North German Lloyd 8.8. Co., 108 App. Div. 279..... 25, 180, 450, 542 Hart v. McKenna, 106 App. Div. 219 222, 293, 507 Hart »v. Village of Clinton, 115 App. Divi (GI occa cectesaiw gn Re 147, 532 Hartman v. Berlin & Jones Envelope Co., 71 Misc. 30....101, 125, 156, 295, 436, 462, 487 Hartman ». Clarke, 104 App. Div. 62 71, 99, 297 Harty v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 95 App. Div. 119 ............... 178, 252 Harvey v. Fargo, 99 App. Div. 599 31, 401, 488, 454 Hasbrouck v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 64 Misc. 478.............. 24, 320 Hashagen v. Schafer, 54 Misc. 236 20, 103, 385 Haslin v. National Foundry Co., 106 App: Divs 12 cgcvscssais 85, 409, 539 Hatch v. City of Elmira, 142 App. Div. Whos Flatout ss aoe ice uae 218, 509 Hatch v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 49| Mise: 152) oa es recreates eeatews Haughey ». Thatcher, 89 App. Div. Hayden v. Joline, 187 App. Div. 755 130, 282, 398 Hayes v. N. Y.. N. H. & H.R. R., 121 App. Div. 198 ....48, 186, 334, 446, 462. Hayner v. Town of Schaghticoke, 126 App. Div. 498. .......... 132, 394, 534 Hazzard v. State of N. Y., 108 App. Dive 19 nbc ayews 137, 158, 332, 422 Healy v. United Traction Co., 115 App. Div. 868........... 270, 458, 520 Healy v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pitts- burgh R. R., 111 App. Div. 618 85, 137, 532 Heater v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 90 App. Div. 495........ 40, 205, 351, 398 Heckmuller v. N. Y. City R. R., 54 Wises 64 23 ete agen tnaeSonecs 49, 280 Heffern v. Village of Haverstraw, 143 App. Div. 527........ 77, 331, 379, 540 Heffron ». Lackawanna Steel Co., 121 App. Div. 35......... 93, 120, 372, 527 Heilig v. Burns, 133 App. Div. 764 133, 368 Heiser ». Cincinnati Abattoir Co., 141 App. Div. 400 .. .113, 199, 369, 496, 548 Heitz v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 117 App. Div. 746. ..........00...., 49, 238, 521 TABLE OF CASES CITED XXIX [References are to Pages] Hemstock v. Lackawanna Iron & Steel Co., 98 App. Div. 332..215, 300, 390, 426, 427 Hennessey v. 42nd St. R. R. Co., 44 Mise. 198............... 253, 355, 498 Hennessey v. 42nd St. & St. N. Ave. R. R., 103 App. Div. 384......... Henry ». Stanley Hod Elevator Co., 129 App. Div. 613............ 363, 506 Henry v. Hudson & Manhattan R. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 140... .95, 114, 385, 500 Henry »v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 253 GS Os 5 a inky Sieh ewe eee ny ae 220 Henry v. City of N. Y., 110 App. Div. 22 (Brief Syllabi). ............ 224, 225 Henson v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 194 NOY: 80% 2s -ndecaes 194, 295, 452, 472 Henson v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 122 App. Div. 160........... 198, 308, 462 Herbert v. Hudson R. Electric R. R., 136 App. Div. 107..... 61, 357, 392, 484 Herbst v. Kellogg Mfg. Co., 112 App. Divs: 356%.) 02 sas e nah awhisad 36 Herman ». Fitzgibbons Boiler Co., 136 App: Div. 286)3524 sige wien cies 212 Herrman v. New England Navigation Co., 143 App. Div. 551 .. .288, 459, 545 Herzog v. Municipal Electric Light Co., 89 App. Div. 569.......... 64, 119 Heslin ». Lake Champlain & Moriah Hewson ». Interurban St. R. R., 95 App. Div. 112............ 37, 255, 426 Hickey, Kaplau & Wiltzek v. Brooklyn H. R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 693 55, 240, 477 Hickman v. Schimper & Co., 125 App. Divs 216s, csesne fauna Pad fas 281, 349 Hickock ». Auburn Light, Heat & Power Co., 200 N. Y. 464. .61, 304, 307, 535 Hicks v. Serano, 74 Misc. 274....... 6, 39 Higbie v. Board of Education, 122 App. Dias, acnwaaearee 20, 23, 484 Higgins v. Erie R. R. Co., 140 App. DVS 22D ee whereas dines ava vee 158, 314 Higgins v. City of Albany, 130 App. Divs 276 ss ie o4 gee seleaod os 433, 517 Higgins v. Ruppert, 124 App. Div. 530 101, 229, 465, 482 Higgins ». United Traction Co., 96 App. Div. 69............ 169, 263, 402 Hill v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 145 App. Div, 605. .03.scsaa bene eeees Hillyer ». Laight St. Stores Co., 133 App. Div. 125............. 69, 97, 384 Hinode Florist Co. ». N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 131 App. Div. 118. .239, 334, 523 Hintze v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 140 App. Div. 852....... 331, 387, 478, 512 Hirsch ». Union R. R. Co., 48 Misc. Bisa uate eros 252, 519 Hirschberg v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & Suburban R. R., 184 App. Div. 629 174, 251, 261, 524 Hirtenstein ». Interurban St. R. R., 115 App. Div. 275. ........ 37, 241, 328 Hitchcock v. Riley, 44 Misc. 260..... 388 Hoag v. South Dover Marble Co., 192 1 Ge ee 142, 248, 511, 522 Hoag v. South Dover Marble Co., 50 Mises 400 cai nicveseexeeoues 4, 148, 520 Hodge v. Rutland R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 142. Hoffart v. Town of West Turin, 90 App. Div. 348... .............. 5, 143 XXX TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Hohl v. Hewitt Motor Co., 121 App. DIV; 866i8 o.0eve venw hs ewes 423, 5382 Hollender v. Hudson et al., 140 App. Hollis v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 128 App. Div. 821 ...114, 249, 335, 394, 458 Hollon v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 148 App. Div. 784........... 183, 254, 552 Holm v. Empire Hardware Co., 102 App. Div. 505............ 15, 337, 374 Holm »v. Empire Hardware Co., 137 App. Div. 96.................0.. 141 Holmes ». D. & H. Co., 128 App. Div. DA eases Waar attsce telecine ta es te 85, 275 Holzhauser v. Brooklyn H. R. R. Co., 43 Mise. 145......... 169, 263, 297, 441 Hood v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 109 App. DiveAlS ecu iaw eRe heck hens Hope v. Scranton & Lehigh Coal Co., 120 App. Div. 595. ....... 280, 372, 527 Hopper v. Benne, 114 App. Div. 572.. 280 Hopper v. City of Yonkers, 110 App. Di FOF ee se eeeechad eas 221, 431 Hordern v. Salvation Army, 124 App. Dive 674 ioe ong accede 108, 403, 548 Hordern v. Salvation Army, 199 N. Y. Horeau v. Schwartzkopf, 142 App. Div. O9ssaacn civoae eee sees 313, 533 Horn »v. Breakstone, 75 Misc. 343. ... 229 Horst v. Walter, 53 Misc. 594..." 60, 362 House v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 128 App. Div. 756. ...... 139, 193, 386, 469 Howard v. 42nd St. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R., 125 App. Div. 776. . .75, 230, 261 Hoyt v. Davis Mfg. Co., 112 App. Div. File Asowisteeeteae Shak 126, 161, 438 Hubbell ». Pioneer Paper Co., 147 Agup. Die 889 4 das ve tise cee 126, 161 Huber v. Whale Creek Iron Works, 125 App. Div. 184....... 275, 281, 424, 532 Huff ». American Fire Engine Co., 88 Apps DIV: 8245 site ted cee eden 29, 153 Hughes v. Harbor & Suburban Bldg. & Saving Association, 131 App. Div. 1855 acecncsiace salsee ore es 89, 134, 340, 348. Hughes ». Russell, 104 App. Div. 144 155, 374 Hungerford »v. Village of Waverly, 56 Mise: 186 638 oescees eeeees ass 220, 433. Hunt v. Dexter Sulphite Pulp & Paper Co., 100 App. Div. 119......... 85, 374 Hunton »v. Village of Peekskill, 119 App. Div. 500..... 21, 36, 163, 186, 432 Hurley v. Olcott, 134 App. Div. 631 56, 113, 368, 487, 529 Hurley v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 188 App. Div. 642............... Huston ». Dobson, 138 App. Div. 810 216, 410 Huther v. Nassau Elec. R. R., 142 App. Dive? i rlsuacass 48, 281, 333, 522 Hyde v. McCreery, 145 App. Div. 729 8, 311, 516 Hynds ». Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 111 App. Div. 339. ....... 248, 277, 457 Hynes ». State of N. Y., 63 Misc. 592 107, 230, 348, 464 I Tanne v. United States Gypsum Co., 194 NG Ys 885 peace wae uae laclaus 353 Tanne v. U. 8. Gypsum Co., 126 App. Div. 244 ............. 89, 115, 353, 490: Taquinto v. Bauer, 104 App. Div. 56 182, 279, 305. TABLE OF CASES CITED XXXl fReferences are to Pages] Tesief ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 102 App. Div. 168... ............ 215, 458 Impellizzieri ». Chas. Cranford, 141 App. Div. 755 ........... 138, 370, 529 Impellizzieri v. Cranford, 148 App. | Divs 758.0 cece evans 106, 154, 488 Independent Ice Cream Co. ». United Ice Cream Co., 69 Misc. 623. .2, 38, 464 Inglese v. N. Y., N. H. & H.R. R., 133 App. Div. 198. .136, 194, 390, 464, 471, 497, 543, 546’ Ingraham v. Stockamore, 63 Misc. 114 6, 425 Trish ». Union Bag & Paper Co., 103 App: Dive 451255 dense ur eeeiee 64 Isola ». D. L. & W. R. R., 1384 App. Divs S16 Scoscewasee: 43, 187, 331, 506 Jackson v. Greene, 201 N. Y. 76..... 69 Jackson v. Greene, 134 App. Div. 918 363, 464, 489 Jacobs ». N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 107 App. Div. 184....... 119, 202, 387, 388 Jaffa v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 131 App. Div. 852....... 240, 342, 524, 551 James v. Cranford, 123 App. Div. 558 62, 487 Jefson v. Crosstown St. R. R., 72 Misc. Jenkins v. Phoenix Const. Co., 145 App. Div. 183... ............ 184, 485 Jennings v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 121 App. Div. 587. ...... ‘231, 271, 448 Jewell v. City of Mt. Vernon, 91 App. Divib18: <0 sxaskee dee 290, 341 Johnson v. Duncan, 98 App. Div. 322 39, 318, 548 ‘Johnson ». Yonkers R. R. Co., 101 App. Div. 65............ 263, 320, 454 Johnson v. Prince Line Limited, 104 App. Div. 157........... 285, 426, 493 Johnson v. Onondaga Paper Co., 112 App. Div. 667........... 121, 152, 226 Johnson v. Terry & Tench Co., 113 App. Div. 762........... 198, 498, 545 Johnson v. City of N. Y., 186 N. Y. 139 8, 131, 396, 512 Johnson v. City of Troy, 124 App. Div. Gi teiReare Se Ora actin 181, 231, 349 Johnson v. Syracuse Lighting Co., 193 NA BO cau yee exe 65, 90, 353, 405 Johnson ». Brooklyn Heights R. R.., 133 App. Div. 252... .175, 237, 440, 530 Johnson ». Phoenix Bridge Co., 133 App. Div. 807....... 389, 419, 421, 446 Johnson v. Prince Line (Limited), 123 App. Div. 547................... Johnson v: Wells Fargo Express Co., 143 App. Div. 926............ 182, 279 Johnston v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 120 App. Div. 456........... 170, 261, 550 Johnston v. Stevens, 123 App. Div. 208 109, 142, 462 Jolliffe »v. Miller, 126 App. Div. LOD n Doel aaly dance eons a oea as 000 Jones v. Gamble, 140 App. Div. 733 212, 505 Jones v. Weigand, 134 App. Div. 644 37, 282, 427 Jones v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 134 App. Div. 39. .93, 194, 340, 366, 367 Jones v. Ryan, 125 App. Div. Tetras ceric CRN e 227, 356 Jones v. Levy, 50 Misc. 624......... 124 Jones v. Union R. R. Co., 50 Mise. 651 2, 63 XXXi TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Jones v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 99. App. Div, Les sececas erase ees Jones v. Kroder & Reubel Co., 95 App. Divs 140i. eae aes 29, 162, 410, 460 Joost v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 113 App. Div. 499. ..-..... 33, 241, 328 Jordan v. American Sight Seeing Coach Co., 129 App. Div. 313. .......... 7 Jordan v. Erie R. R. Co., 126 App. Div. DD a a. a idaneger euclasiaeia eb oteapee: 447, 475 Josupeet v. City of Niagara Falls, 70 Mise. 6388. ............ 76, 95, 371, 429 Jung v. City of N. Y., 132 App. Div. WSiwaewvcessdeaee 163, 230, 289, 517, 548 K Kaczmarek ». Crosstown St. R. R. Co., 143 App. Div. 954.............. 10, 42 Kahner v. Otis Elevator Co., 96 App. Kahn v. Burrette, 42 Misc. 541. ..291, 480 Kain v. Roebling Const. Co., 72 Misc. Ss A Ga thea ces anes 106, 297 Kalb v. Redwood, 147 App. Div. 77 8, 312, 397 Kalbach »v. Ross, 145 App. Div. Doig deen tiaras teh Suan ae sak wees 283 Kalisher v. Browning King & Co., 139 App. Div. 687............. wo 90 Kane v. Erie R. R. Co., 110 App. Div. Ticks, dstinish teat nde sin ayn tes 36, 110, 535 Kane v. Williams, 140 App. Div. 857 145, 286, 342, 416 Kaplan v. Friedman Construction Co., 148 App. Div. 14...... 20, 344, 407, 440 Kaplan »v. Lyons Bldg. & Operating Co., 61 Mise. 315... ....... 69, 97, 364 Kaplan v. Sher, 56 Misc. 432.151, 154, 314 Kaplan v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 98 App. Div. 133.................5. 33 Kaplowitz v. Interborough R. T. Co., 52 Misc. 648 (Mem.) .. .. .116, 228, 442 Karcher »v. Fiss, Doerr & Carroll Horse Co., 127 App. Div. 203... .. 3, 142, 309 Karfiol v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. (| eee eae eee eee 216, £06 Karr v. Village of Alfred, 148 App. Div. TE os lea dha aas coca enit 225, 544 Kaucher v. City of N. Y., 144 App. Dive 103-10 aye cieesgeeen mines 233, 283 Kaufman v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 43 Misc. 684... ......-...-.00065 Kayser v. New York Mail Company, 75 Mise. 474... ..............05. Keating ». Manhattan R. R. Co., 110 App. Div. 108............... 245, 493 Keating v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 105 App. Div. 362............ 129, 222 Keating v. Coon, 102 App. Div. 112 29, 153, 330 Keating ». Mott, 92 App. Div. 156 87, 121, 303, 344 Keefe ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 109 App. Div. 180............ 16, 188, 466 Keefe v. Lee, 197 N. Y. 68... .3, 347, 458 Keeler ». N. Y. C. & H. R. RB. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 807. ....... 199, 355, 429 Keenan v. McAdams & Cartright Elev. Co., 129 App. Div. 117. .......... 483 Keenan v. McAdams & Cartright Elev. Co., 58 Mise. 871............. 158, 482 Keenan ». Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 56..... 172, 260, 309, 349 Kehoe 2. International R. R. Co., 56 Misc. 188.............., 176, 250, 454 Keller v. Wove Realty Co., 128 App. Div. 154.002.000.002. 67, 436, 458, 550 TABLE OF CASES CITED edi’ [References are to Pages] Keller v. Erie R. R. Co., 98 App. Div. DOU ats kaetacses oar ehcp ts a a 205, 473 Kellogg v. N. Y. Edison Co., 120 App. Bve AIO oe seis ade 136, 486, 532 Kellogg » Church Charity Founda- tion Co. of L.I., 185 App. Div. Kellogg ». Church, Charity Founda- tion Co., ete., 203 N. Y. 191 Kelly ». Hudson Companies, 65 Misc. DAs Sea Sate cot 35, 88, 351, 437 Kelly ». City of New York, 129 App. Div. 658........ 164, 218, 408, 509, 517 Kelly v. National Starch Co., 142 App. Div; 286 w seocsis ese ae 412, 491, 512 Kelly v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 192 We cas cise 81, 192, 495, 513 Kelly v. Battle Island Paper Co., 122 App. Div. 185... ............. 86, 499 Kelly ». American Locomotive Co., 121 App. Div. 81.....192, 229, 494, 532 Kelly ». D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 482........ 81, 186, 386, 468 Kelly v. Wills, 116 App. Div. 758 214, 356, 381, 409 Kelly o. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 89 325 App. Div. 159........... 180, 234, 518 Kelly v. United Traction Co., 88 App. TO akc tiauersre cts 59, 242, 325 Kelsey v. City of N. Y., 123 App. Div. Be el ei cielo 288, 345, 547 Kemp v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 135 App. Div. 773........ 93, 197, 200, 398 Kennealy v. Westchester Elec. R. R. Co., 86 App. Div. 293 ..... 65, 339, 400 Kennedy v. N. Y. Telephone Co., 125 App. Div. 846........... 100, 146, 371 Kennedy ». Wanamaker, 145 App. Divi,428) ¢ ecavaakiwss seats 66, 426, 492 Kenney v. South Shore Natural Gas & Fuel Co., 134 App. Div. 859. .82, 122, 299, 345, 383 Kenney v. Harlem Savings Bank, 61 Misc. 144............. 12, 59, 313, 391 ‘Kenney v. Brooklyn Bridge Stores Co., 121 App. Div. 684. ......... 20, 86, 308 Kenyon ». Sanford Mfg. Co., 119 App. Diya: BION sce tees lae et 160, 327, 413 Kerin ». United Traction Co., 117 App. Div. 314............ 49, 236, 520 Kiefer ». Brooklyn Heights R. R., 111 App. Div. 404... ............ 256, 520 Kiernan v. Gutta Percha & Rubber Mfg. Co., 184 App. Div. 192... .91, 502 Kiernan ». Eidlitz, 115 App. Div. 141 70, 98, 373, 485 Kiernan v. Eidlitz, 109 App. Div. 726 71, 99, 415 Kiers v. Rathjen, 60 Misc. 105. .286, 302, 457 Kiley ». N. Y. City R. R. Co., 49 Mise. O54 Sandan, den eee she pee Geek 235 Kimball v. O’Dell & Eddy Co., 138 App. Div. 409.................0. 149 Kimball v. O’Dell & Eddy Co., 131 App. Div. 542............... 136, 149 Kimmerle v. Carey Printing Co., 144 App. Div. 714............... 121, 415 King v. Reid, 124 App. Div. 121. .28, 108, 156, 413, 424 King ». Ford, 121 App. Div. BOW ca cs era te cmisag leurs caiicuale 14, 360 King ». Village of Fort Ann, 180 N. Y. AQG oars hahaa xara tha ale doanevaueers 128, 279 King ». Consolidated Gas Co., 90 App Div. 1665.6 ¢2agine Steere asses 83, 123 Kinney v. Rutland R. R. Co., 114 App. Divi-286 » case e cae qe 138, 439, 498 XXXIV TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Kipp v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R. Co., 89 App. Div. 392....... Sue biaeeated Kirby v. Montgomery Brothers Co., 197 Nu Vo 27 cece 404, 443, 502, 529 Kircher v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 1 App. Div. 144..35, 72, 325, 326, 400, 437 Kirkover v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 134 App. Div. 792........... 158, 425, 497 Karwan v. American Lithographic Co., 124 App. Div. 180........ 151, 392, 546 Kirwan v. American Lithographic Co., 197 N. Y. 413. .27, 124, 159, 410, 425, 546 Klassen v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 153............. 49, 236 Klaus v. City of Buffalo, 86 App. Div. 22 a wistureieder nats ya HCN Rae eee 224, 507 Kleffman v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 116 App. Div. 334....167, 172, 259, 537 Kleffman v. Dry Dock E. Broadway & Battery R. R., 104 App. Div. 416 173, 256 Klein v. Burleson, 188 App. Div. 405... 5 Klein v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 55 Wise S11 sigs ceesaeas 170, 261, 540 Klein v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 53 Mise. BA y ste onto ts wena hese senate Meals tie 265 Klein ». Garvey, 94 App. Div. Wee Sel eek an ad ena 161, 415 Kleinberg v. Schween, 134 App. Div. ADB 32 sana ncaa es 75, 91, 334, 379, 5385 Kleiner v. Cohn, 75 Misc. 116........ 12 Kleps v. Bristol Mfg. Co., 107 App. Div; 488 ox th Sh ntes Aicew ew crs 388 Kleyle ». City of Oswego, 109 App. Divi 880 e6s see caes 222, 396, 431, 441 Klimpl z. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 92 App. Div. 291... ........... .. 58 Klinger v. United Traction Co., 92 App. Div. 100 ............ 47, 465, 480 Knaisch v. Joline, 138 App. Div. 854 171, 261 Knapp »v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 103 App. Div. 252. ......... 18, 52, 519 Knezevich v. Bush Terminal Co., 127 App. Div. 54..0......... 226, 291, 490 Knickerbocker v. General R. R. Signal Co., 183 App. Div. 787. .72, 96, 397, 497, 546 Knieriem v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R., 146 App. Div. 661. ....... 179, 322, 452 Koch v. Zimmerman, 85 App. Div. 370 22, 105, 464 Koehler v. N. Y. Steam Co., 183 Koester ». Rochester Candy Works, 194 -Ny Yo 92 « sseseuvases 299, 326, 412 Kohm ». Interborough R. T. Co., 104 App. Div. 2387... ............ 173, 256. Konigsberg v. Davis, 57 Misc. 630 78, 102, 459: Kopper »v. City of Yonkers, 110 App. DTT is coos agence cee eae 221, 431 Kostenbaum »v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 120 App. Div. 160. ........ 33, 241, 327 _Koszlowski v. American Locomotive Co., 96 App. Div. 40....135, 154, 422, 493 Kozak v. Erie R. R., 185 App. Div. 726 189, 366, 392, 477, 542, 546 Kozlowski v. Rochester Syracuse & Eastern R. R. Co., 142 App. Div. Kramer »v. oe Heights R. R. Co., 190 N. Y. 310. ...... 176, 250, 451 Kramer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 804........ 257, 450: TABLE OF CASES CITED XXXV {References are to Pages] Krause v. Gair Company, 136 App. DivicB57 ack maiancins 67, 96, 427, 444 Krebs v. International R. R. Co., 139 App. Div. 870...............004 47 Krebs v. Heitmann, 104 App. Div. 173 111, 293, 507 Kremer v. N. Y. Edison Co., 102 App. Divi 483 ise cece ces eas ere 553 Kriedermacher v. Union R. R. Co., 59 Mise. 410... ........000.008- 170, 262 Krueger v. Bartholomay Brewing Co., 94 App. Div. 58...............0. 84 Krug v. American Sugar Refining Co., 120 App. Div. 587......... 92, 120, 491 Kruse v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 146 App. Div. 485............ 196, 309 Kuelling v. Roderick Lean Mfg. Co., 88 App. Div. 309............. 155, 425 Kueski ». N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 109 App. Div. 207............. 51, 234 Kuhnen v. White, 102 App. Div. DORA Geld pees dak Bane a euep etentuenoney atone 229 Kujava v. Irving, 122 App. Div. 375 154, 272, 527 Kupec v. Interborough R. T. Co., 120 App; Div, 166) sisveses cewoisss Kupfersmith ». Hopper & Son, 122 App. Div. 81............ 102, 317, 346 Kurlanchick ». Sklamberg, 56 Misc. ANB bi 3s aie tayo 231, 272, 298, 508, 516 Kurt v. Lake Shore & M.S. R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 838........ 208, 469, 475 L Lackawanna Steel Co. ». Pioneer 8. 8. Co., 69 Misc. 104. ............266 42 Lackawanna Steel Co. v. Pioneer 8. 8. Co., 148 App. Div. 465........ 286, 307 Ladiew v. Sherwood Metal Working Co., 125 App. Div. 65 .. ...27, 154, 463- Ladrick v. Village of Green Island, 103 App. Dive Th oa. saeeae ee kee as 223, 301 LaDuke v. Hudson R. Telephone Co., 136 App. Div. 136. .89, 274, 346, 404, 502, 530 LaDuke v. Hudson R. Telephone Co., 124 App. Div. 106. ....... 273, 354, 530 Laffan v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 108 App. Div 3288 coos y seus Geese) 244 Lafferty v. 3rd Ave. R. R. Co., 85 App. Div. 592............ 33, 325, 330 Lalor ». City of N. Y., 147 App. Div. GAG: henry Ne AMARA Ca, Ste Ruste an eaae 231 Lamb ». Union R. R. Co., 195 N. Y. 200 se Sra Gee agewe em oh ae _...204, 400 Lamb »v. Union R. R. Co., 125 App. Divi 286%6 ition aaa eaauin ae 267, 354 Lambert v. Westchester Elec. R. R. Co;, 101 Ne Ys BB cesas £8, 281, 516 Lambert v. Westchester Elec. R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 78 .. ...50, 248, 280 Lamphear v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 194 N. Y.172..............4. 209, 475: Lamprecht v. Bien, 125 App. Div. 811 5, 308, 318 Landau ». City of N. Y., 90 App. Div. Beh ge helicase AO cee aes 430, 447 Landau »v. City of N. Y., 180 N. Y. 48 119, 430 Lane v. N. Y.C. & H. R. RK. R., 93 App: Div: 40:0 ¢2eeevedowr cies 190, 492 Lane v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 107 App. Div. 166........... 190, 466, 493 Lane v. N. Y. 0. & W. R. R., 141 App. Div. 145. ...........0.06. 16, 194, 316 Lane v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 125 App. Div. 808.46, 187, 275, 318,339, 482 XXXVi TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Lane v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 85 App. Divs 89% cease gues Senwscg ee 54 Lanigan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 125 App. Div. 622..... 48, 131, 281, 395 Laplaca v. Lake Shore & M.S. R. R., 127 App. Div. 843... .151, 198, 370, 469 Larson v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 138 App. Div. 375................00- 150 Larsen v.U. 8. Mortgage & Trust Co., 104 App. Div. 76......... 206, 473, 478 Larsen ». Lackawanna Steel Co., 146 Apps Div. 238:..05 sess eyaee es 30, 306 Larson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 134 App. Div. 679....... 133, 368, 389, 529 Larson ». City of N. Y., 145 App. Div. OLD) 5 Arce kale bseialscaed aemeleeawh Sneed 225 Lather ». Bammann, 122 App. Div. 13 116, 228, 418 Lauder v. Jennings, 148 App. Div. 848 22 Laurence v. Stanley Hod Elevator Co., 5b: MisG 225 hs vended: Ganvieioeiarnes 66, 103 Lawrence v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 114 App. Div. 16............. 269, 549 Leahy v. Gaylord & Eitapenc Co., 117 App. Div. 316............... 103, 381 Leary v. City of Yonkers, 95 App. Div. (OG >. use acaceseeeee: 87, 99, 223 Leaux v. City of N. Y., 87 App. Div. 398 and 405............. 145, 216, 418 LeDuc ». N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 92 Woops Dive 107 vapavesetac 35, 200, 472 Lee v. Stilwater & Mechanicsville R. R., 140 App. Div. 779... ...... 61, 428 Lee v. Western Elec. Co., 135 App. Divs 60 cihacax ooieke ee 72, 367, 529 Lee v. Sterling Silk Mfg. Co., 134 App. Div. 123. ...... 125, 160, 400, 411 Lee v. Sterling Silk Mfg. Co., 115 App. Div. 589 ... .36, 149, 328, 414, 515 Lee v. Ingraham, 106 App. Div. WG TAGcds asitie Rah ee een ee 228 Leeds ». N. Y. Telephone Co., 178 ING ¥. 1183 cadena one < aaa 21, 88 Leggett v. City of Watertown, 193 App. Div. 80. ....... 115, 224, 358, 549 Lennox v. Interurban St. R. R., 104 App. Div. 110........... 178, 324, 350 Leonard ». Union R. R. Co. of N. Y. City, 98 App. Div. 204... . 169, 263, 345 Leonard »v. Joline, 61 Misc. 336. ..... 238 Lester v. Crabtree, 125 App. Div. 617 : 27, 151, 295 Levin v. Nassau Elec. R. R., 188 App. Levine v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & Sub- urban R. R., 134 App. Div. 606 175, 332, 337, 483 Levy v. Mott Iron Works, 143 App. De Guo ucaeness 70, 357, 381, 462 Lewis v. Gehlen, 186 App. Div. 855 106, 391, 495 Lewis Co. v. Metropolitan Realty Co., 112 App. Div. 385... ............ Lewis v. Erie R. R., 105 App. Div. 292 40, 409, 410, 439, 473 Lewis». N. Y.0. & W. R.R., 146 App. Dive 250 ce cyanosis si 105, 148 Limerick v. Holdsworth, 136 App. Div. DOD A iss Baad aia yl a a ectee hae 282, 338 Lipsis ». Metropolitan St. R. R., 112 App. Div. 27............. 33, 241, 539 Littlefield ». N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Mise. .637.2.c25 ie aueticn as 50, 235, 333 Litzour ». N. Y. City R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 477....... peca Seg So 50, 236 Lobasco v. Moxie Nerve Food Co., 127 , App. Div. 677... 00.2... 80, 489 TABLE OF CASES CITED XXXVIl (References are to Pages] Lockhart ». Hoffman, 197 N. Y. 331 56, 112, 410 Lockwood v. Troy City R. R. Co., 92 App. Div. 112............. 18, 53, 402 Lofsten v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 184. Ne Vs 148: cnc eve erento 269, 343 Lofsten v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 97 B90 es Gun eoh ease ME eee 76, 375 Logerto v. Central Bldg. Co., 123 App. Div. 840..77, 338, 372, 379, 427, 487, 495, 499 LoMonaco v. Murphy Const. Co., 132 App. Div. 674. ...... 133, 368, 512, 528 Long v. City of New York, 136 App. Di¥e 656, jcc accasaseuemeenas Loomis v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 133 App. Div. 247 ....10, 237, 456, 476, 551 Loomis v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R., 182 N. Y. 380................. 17, 190 Lorenz v. Tisdale, 127 App. Div. 433 6, 310, 536 Lorenzo v. Faillace, 182 App. Div. 103 213, 411, 505 Loretz v. City of N. Y., 148 App. Div. MQM iis Mekiese dens eee 3, 130, 165, 435 Losie v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 142 App. Div. 214......... 1, 202, 295, 482 Loughlin v. Edison Elec. Ill. Co., 136 App. Div. 916................... 61 Loughlin v. Brassil, 187 N. Y. 128 155, 479, 549 Loughran ». Mott Iron Works, 122 App. Div. 595................ 28, 157 Loushay v. Erie R. R. Co., 95 App. Div: 102s sew yeasdeaneey 249, 485, 531 Love v. Globe Hat Mfg. Co., 129 App. Div. 621............... 288, 417 Lowman v. Pa. Steel Co., 142 App. Die OT eves soebvok en: 17, 102 Lowrey v. Huntington L. & P. Co., 121 App. Div. 245........... 100, 373, 526 Lowry v. Anderson Co., 96 App. Div. AGB. sce wing eu earginne ews 72, 97, 330, 414 Lubelsky »v. Silverman, 49 Misc. 133 132, 222, 507 Lucas v. International Paper Co., 131 App. Div. 368............... 162, 288’ Ludinsky v. N. Y. City R. R., 53 Mise. Be havitecalecemacien 172, 259, 513, 521 Lumsden ». Thompson Scenic R. R. Co., 130 App. Div. 209.174, 249, 353, 489 Luria v. Cusick, 47 Misc. 126....... 14 Lusk v. Peck, 132 App. Div. 426. .91, 114, 226, 404, 417, 530 Lust »v. Syracuse Rapid Transit Co., 142 App. Div. 290. ........ 48, 238, 333 Lynch v. Elektron Mfg. Co., 195 N. Y A Soe ee eee antenna 74, 364 Lynch ». American Linseed Co., 122 App. Div. 428............. 73, 99, 499 Lynch ». American Linseed Co., 113 App. Div. 502............ 74, 100, 492 Lytich v. Shanley Co., 112 App. Div. B00 aces ous dian tay bes 28, 152, 403 Lynch ». Brooklyn Heights R. R., 89 Appy DIV 210 36 ees a secnes sa 94, 243 Lynch v. Bush Co. (Limited), 89 App. Divs286 isis cia ciaieiacs case ea tie 21, 88 Lynch v. 38rd Ave. R. R. Co., 88 App. Div. 604.......... sugtantasetetes 267 Lynch v. United Traction Co., 145 App. Div. 732................04. Lyon v. Coleman, 123 App. Div. 703 16, 190, 295 TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] XXXVili M Mackey v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 467. ....... 167, 265, 446 Mackey ». City of N. Y., 121 App. Div. AT B a3 an Ne To oa Rees 220, 479 Mack v. Town of Shawangunk, 98 App. DiviO00 vx. 8 ceca yen wees 18 MacRae v. Chelsea Fibre Mills, 145 App. Div. 588............ 45, 338, 435 Madden ». Hughes, 185 N. Y. AGG ccc d'a:e0da en Pier alee ee 214, 358 Madden v. Hughes, 104 App. Div. 101 184 Madden v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 98 Aegp, re AGB 525 ee opanneds 208, 234 Madigan ». Town of Schaghticoke, 143 App. Div. 887............... 127, 534 Maercker v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 187 App. Div. 49. ........... 261 Magar v. Hammond, 95 App. Div. 249: 186, 276 Maher ». Benedict, 123 App. Div. 579 9, 144, 310, 550 Maher v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 102 App. Di: S17 nice ecient 52 Mahoney ». Cayuga Lake Cement Co., 126 App. Div. 164. .80, 315, 360, 386 Mahoney ». L. I. R. R., 147 App. Div. Maiorca v. Myers, 131 App. Div 210 of 117, 388 Makin ». Pettebone Cataract Paper Co., 111 App. Div. 726... . .26, 152, 422 Makoski v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 136 App. Div. 110......... 92, 342, 402 Malaverneri v. Turner Const. Co., 141 App. Div. 360. ........... 72, 340, 363 Malizia v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 202. . .244, 468, 515 210. Maloney v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 95 App. Div. 393... ............. 169, 263 Mandy ». Schleicher Co., 142 App. Div..23% 4 ede 10, 26, 161, 301, 327, 335 Mangan v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 50 Misc. 388. .63, 359, 363, 419, 435, 461 Manion v. Richmond Ice Co., 133 App. Div. 254.............50. 30, 326 Manney ». Curtis, 113 App. Div. 421.. 221 Manning v. Nassau Elec. R. R., 167 App. Div. 860................... Mansell v. Conrad, 125 App. Div. 634 27, 125, 126 Manser v. Astoria Veneer Mills, 146 App. Div. 478... ......... 361, 391, 415 Mansfield v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 199..11, 232, 405, 432, 442, 444, 458, 459, 479 Manzella v. Rochester R. R. Co., 105 Apps DIVe 12.05 ici taceaacsotaeeden 253 Marceau v. Rutland R. R. Co., 74 Mise. 630.208 24 oe ce Hee oe 84, 204 Marguiles v. Interurban St. R. R., 116 App DIVE LD Ca te ep iaw a het opie 270 Maringer v. Hill, 146 App. Div. 720 122, 146 Marius ». Motor Delivery Co., 146 App. Div. 609.............. 9, 32, 329 Markham v. Stevenson Brewing Co., 104 App. Div. 420... ..........., 418 Maroney v. City of N. Y., 117 App. DIVE SES, ncetiteaa yell ur es 508 Marra v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R. Co., 139 App. Div. 707. ....... 196, 197, 276 Marroney ». City of N. Y., 49 Misc. BO fis seo is cos wench ew Siege ca Ge Jeu 221 Marsen ». Nichols Copper Co., 1384 App. Dit, 908 vo ose ¢sacciae es 91, 502 TABLE OF CASES CITED XXXIX (References are to Pages] Marshall ». Auburn & Northern Elec. R. R. Co., 123 App. Div. OU Vea tet ois a aang on anahs 142 Martin ». Althaus, 189 App. Div. 224 ne rire rag tales aati anes 142 Martin v. Degnon Contracting Co., 127 App. Div. 85. ............ 95, 490, 528 Martin v. Walker & Williams Mfg. Co., 198 N. Y. 324........... 120, 156 Martin ». Cornell, 136 App. Div. 585 96, 367, 529 Martin v. Walker & Williams Mfg. Co., 122 App. Div. 280.120, 156, 393,405, 413 Martin v. Walker & Williams Mfg. Co., 128 App. Div. 733..26, 156, 226, 303, 393 Martin »v. State of N. Y., 120 App. Div. GSS ad, Gia etoe Mire Sec atsend ae Oe 198, 515 Martin v. 42nd St. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R., 54 Misc. 645........ 49, 238, 474 Maslin ». Childs, 146 App. Div. 174 95, 146, 184 Mason-Seaman Transportation Co. ». Wineburgh, 72 Misc. 398 ......... 6 Masterson v. Crosstown St. R. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 499........... 250, 451, 522 Mastin v. City of N. Y., 201 N. Y. 81 139, 342 Match »v. Polygraph Printing Co., 147 App. Div. 152........... eee Matej v. India Rubber & Gutta Percha Co., 133 App. Div. 131 .. .125, 150, 352 Mathers »v. Interurban St. R. R., 112: 122 App. Div. 897................04. 269 Matrusciello ». Milliken Bros. Incor- porated, 129 App. Div. 661....... 369 Matrusciello ». Milliken Bros., 141 App. Div. 769. .55, 139, 208, 370, 475, 489, 511 Mattson v. Phoenix Const. Co., 135 App. Div. 234....... 112, 145, 367, 428 Matulewicz v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 107 App. Div. 230................ 253 Matzing v. Excelsior Brewing Co., 107 App. Div. 275...............00... 85 Maucher v. Hartzheim, 121 App. Div. Bo et i nanainledie nite 274, 505 Mauer »v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 87 App. Div. 119. .......... 267, 472, 518 Maurer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 110 App. Div. 36 (Mem.) .. .. .168, 264 May v. New York Central & H. R. R. . =) R,, 187 App. Div. 7.........0000- 209 Mayhood ». City of N. Y., 119 App. Dy 100 ecascdteecack. |... 220, 508 Maynard v. Rochester R. R. Co., 136 App. Div. 212..........:....165, 246 McArthur v. N. Y. City R. R., 53 Mise. DOP oi tga idiot gu ens 265, 296 McAuley v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 111 App. Div. 117. ........ 57, 199, 300 McAuliffe v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R.B., 88 App. Div. 356................... 205 McAuliffe v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R.R., 85 App. Div. 187... ............. 40 McAuliffe » N. Y. City R. R., 122 App. Div. 683. ................. 271 McBride v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 113 App. Div. 821 .....14, 80, 373, 485, 526 McBride v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 101 App. Div. 448. ........ ee 14, 80, 374 McCabe ». International R. R. Co., 143 App. Div. 710... ............ 269 McCabe ». Interurban St. R. R., 49 Mise: 25155 peeved se ies ie 254, 460 McCaffrey ». B. & O. R. R. Co., 201 ING Von L1G) Sera ieegie ween tetera 353 xl TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] McCahill v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 135 App. Div. 322........ +... 144, 402 McCahill v. N. Y. Transportation Co., OU We VOR saw lyaet eens: 8, 273, 436 McCallum »v. Dodge, 148 App. Div. 86 69, 418 McCann v. Davison, 145 App. Div. 522 "8, 311, 448 McCann v. Interurban St. R. R., 117 App. Div. 188... ............. 244, 304 McCarthy ». Brooklyn Taxi Co., 140 App. DIV, VE nd eke ga es eeele eae a 38 McCarthy v. Norcross Bros. Co., 121 App. Div. 775............... 102, 141 McCarthy ». Pa. R. R., 189 N. Y. 170 43, 187, 494 McCarthy »v. Packard Co., 105 App. Div. 486. .......... seu ld dediney' ek 106, 389 McCarthy ». City of Syracuse, 96 App. Div, 566.25 cag) ee cea es 206, 223, 430 McCarrogher ». Proal, 114 App. Div. Ae: dorntwin setae 6, 12, 41, 447, 536 McCherry v. Snare & Triest Co. & B. H. R. R. Co., 130 App. Div. 241 136, 398, 470 McConnell v. Morse Iron Works, 102 App. Div. 324........... 147, 306, 439 McConnell v. Thomas & Buckley Operating Co. 148 App. Div. 635) todd a oedke kpc eeeeas a#. .69, 378 McConnell v. Morse I. W. & D. D. Co., 187 N. Y. 341. .......... 147, 331 McCormick »v. Rochester R. R. Co., 133 App. Div. 760. .175, 255, 348, 464, 542 McCormick v. Interborough R. T. Co., 132 App. Div. 703. ....... 124, 314, 483 McCoy ». N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 119 App. Div. 581. ...... 192, 305, 307, 494 McCoy »v. City of Utica, 143 App. Div. McCoy v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 185 App: Div: 276 +255 e5.0s4 seas 191, 493 McDermott v. Straus, 123 App. Div. McDermott v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 89 App. Div. 214......... 267, 513 McDonald ». Degnon McLean Con- tracting Co., 124 App. Div. SOA cian ees palate asaya 231, 341 McDonald ». Triest, 119 App. Div. 75 185, 354, 356, 545 McDonald ». Simpson-Crawford Co., 114 App. Div. 859. ........ 68, 426, 526 McDonald »v. Holbrook Cabot & Daly Co, 105 App. Div. 90 ee cach Meaceee es 222, 301, 337 McDonald v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 938 App. Div. 2388.......... 33, 241 McDonnell v. Robinson Co., 136 App. Div. 598... .. 68, 124, 375, 495, 502, 511 McDonnell v. Metropolitan Bridge & Const. Co., 131 App. Div. 301. .57, 113, 464, 541 McDonough v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 124 App. Div. 38. ........ 118, 202, 387 McDonough v. Clonbrock Steam Boiler ‘Co., 118 App. Div. 4382........ 108, 498 McDonough ». Pelham Hod Elevating Co., 111 App. Div. 585......... 74, 365. McDonough ». James Reilly Repair & Supply Co., 47 Misc. 109. .104, 366, 419, 435 McDonough ». Reilly Repair Co., 45 Misc. 334...... Sher burtend mnsentuan aad 435, McDonough ». 3rd Ave. R. R. Co., 95 App. Div. 311. .......... 169, 263, 449 TABLE OF CASES CITED xli {References are to Pages] McDowell v. City of Auburn, 126 App. Div. 173 ......0...... 131, 281, 395, 433 ~ McEnroe ». Taylor, 56 Misc. 680. . 11, 299, 309 McEntee v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 110 App. Div. 673. .......... 269 McFadden »v. Thompson-Starrett Co., 116 App. Div. 285. ........ 23, 317, 350 McFarland v. Elmira W. L. & R. R. Co., 136 App. Div. 194......... 82, 242 McFeeters v. City of N. Y., 102 App. DIV 32: a5 sic asst ate 3 78, 127, 397, 431 McGahie ». McLennen, 86 App. Div. DOS. iste hc hoe oe ne aR ea 377, 548 McGarey »v. City of N. Y., 89 App. Div. DOD ciao eae Tiana ene ats 164, 182 McGinnis v. N. Y.C. & H.R. RK. R., 144 App. Div. 885... ............ 17 McGinnis ». Hyman, 63 Misc. 316 1, 218, 510 McGinness v. 8rd Ave. R. R. Co., 104 App. Div. 342................... McGlynn v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 866. ....... 176, 251, 523 McGlynn »v. Pa. Steel Co., 144 App. Div. 348 ............. 58, 406, 441, 543 McGovern v. Degnon-McLean Con- 120 App. Div. 524 . 57, 138, 462 McGowan v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 143 App. Div. 1....81, 495, 499, 546, 548 McGrane v. Nassau Elec. R. R. Co., 134 App. Div. 257..:.....174, 267, 524 McGrath v. Hughes Co., 139 App. Div. tracting Co., McGrath v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 63......... 171, 260, 457 McGrath »v. Fibre Conduit Co., 122 App. Div. 424....... 100, 157, 308, 423 McGrath »v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 47 Misc. 104. ............05. 51 McGreevy v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 113 App. Div. 155............... 246, 520 McGuire v. Interborough R. T. Co., 104 App. Div. 105. ....... 272, 441, 466 McGuirk ». Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 50 Mise. 590. ............. 74, 365, 426 McGurgan v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 519 ........... 238, 521, 537 McHugh »v. Grand Central Bld. & Const. Co., 183 App. Div. 100. .121, 125, 411, 503 McHugh ». Inter-State Paving Co., 121 App. Div. 517......... 75, 126, 491 McHugh ». Manhattan R. R. Co., 179 Ni NicS0 8 eae wee Ae eatin 191, 519 McHugh »v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 88 App. Div. 554... ...........4. 248, 465 McKenna v. Snare & Triest Co., 147 App. Div. 855............-4.. 138, 367 McKenzie v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div 60s cea See eee 216, 506 McKenzie v. Waddell Coal Co., 89 App. Div. 415.................4. McKinley ». Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 91 App. Div. 153..... 29, 268, 378 McKone »v. Village of Warsaw, 187 N. Y. 336....... 128, 232, 395, 432, 543 McLaughlin & Daniels v. B. H. R. R., 147 App. Div. 982............... 176 McLaughlin v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 111 App. Div. 254... .0........... 245 McLaughlin »v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 101 App. Div. 184........ 173, 256 xii TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] McMahon ». Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 138 App. Div. 628... ............ 83 McMahon ». Schneer’s Sons & Co., 146 App. Div. 742................... 162 McManus »v. St. Regis Paper Co., 107 App. Div. 29............. 29, 161, 539 McManus »v. City of Watertown, 88 App. Div. 861............... 224, 430 McMichael ». Federal Printing Co., 139 App. Div. 225.............. 154 McMillan v. Minetto Shade Cloth Co., 134 App. Div. 28........ 149, 275, 533 McMullen v. City of N. Y., 110 App. Divi PUG ss aaceavaniate i Racker 99, 135, 531 McMullen v. City of N. Y., 104 App. DIV B8I ne a tee tec gta oat ame 106 McNamara ». City of N. Y., 144 App. Divi 504 vo se ray neee qe wine 105, 356 McNamara »v. City of N. Y., 143 App. Div i989 2.4 ase4 ea ekess wee ese 101, 147 McNamee v. Western Union Tele- graph Co., 140 App. Div.874.60, 342, 362 McNamee »v. Borough Development Co., 184 App. Div. 666 .. .113, 135, 385 MeNeece v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 123 App. Div. 830........ 166, 262 MeNeil ». Bottsford Dickinson Co., 128 App. Div. 544 90, 392, 393, 412, 500 MeNulty v. Ludwig & Co., 125 App. Wig, 80 essen savenaaes 101, 341, 460 McQueen v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 102 Kops U6, 195 5 sass oven ees 154, 291 McRorie v. Monroe, 203 N. Y. 426 31, 299, 551 McSweeney v. Erie R. R., 93 App. Divv496:s so cericer nih sesraawe 206, 473 MeVay »v. Brooklyn & Queens Co. & Suburban R. R. Co., 113 App. Div. Dik Ph Ghd 8 eee SAE 256, 461 Mead ». Huber Brewery, 104 App. DIVE 10 32sec sone aaice aii as 279, 549 Meade v. Goldman, 145 App. Div. 509 233, 283, 351, 453 Meaney v. Hurwitz, 115 App. Div. 572 12, 86, 135, 296, 481 Meehan ». Atlas Safe Moving Co., 94 App. Div. 306. ........... 87, 406, 426 Mehler v. Fisch, 65 Misc. 549. .107, 212, 340, 459 Meigel v. Crandall Oil & Putty Mfg. Co., 141 App. Div. 828 26, 152, 489, 497 Mendelson »v. VanRensselaer, 118 App. Div. 516. . 6, 41, 280, 349, 395, 536 Mendizabal ». N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R. Co., 89 App. Div. 387 . 59, 197, 387, 465 Mengle ». McClintic Marshall Const. Co., 89 App. Div. 334... .109, 276, 445 Meschneck v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & 8S. R. R. Co., 125 App. Div. 265: 250, 399, 458 Messersmith v. City of Buffalo, 138 App DIV 420 jc 2d once cde 176 Michael »v. Standard Concrete Steel Co., 55 Mise. 255........ 274, 417, 532 Middleton v. Reutler, 141 App. Div. 517. ... .35, 109, 294, 326, 420, 445, 478 Miehlke v. Nassau Elec. R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 438....... 175, 348, 380, 452 Mikos ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 536. ....... 190, 373, 526 Milbaur v. Richard, 188 N. Y. ME cis cate thai eakewk Ooca 19, 317 Miles ». City of Brooklyn, 98 App. Bons 100 hs be aoe Sect eeuces 164, 547 Millar v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 124 App. Div. 192......0..........0. 166 Miller ». American Sugar Refining Co., 138 App. Div. 512... ............ 117 TABLE OF CASES CITED xliii [References are to Pages] Miller ». Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co., 134 App. Div. 212............ 251, 331 Miller v. Twiname, 129 App. Div. 623 13, 131, 353, 445, 446 Miller 7. Union R. R. Co., 191 N. Y. Miller v, International R. R. Co., 52 Mise. 344....167, 259, 265, 407, 439, 440, 540 Miller v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Misc. 650. ................. 1, 58, 243 Miller v. City of N. Y., 104 App. Div. DS:-6 i deviate sei nee ee eis 164, 396, 455 Miller v. Levering & Carrigues Co., 144 App. Div. 12..... 104, 135, 297, 377 Miller v. Solvay Process Co., 108 App. Ws VBS 5.5 ath deh acer akties 24, 374 Millerick ». Wing, 133 App. Div. 453 150, 352, 375 Milligan v. Clayville Knitting Co., 137 App; Divs 383. s.csHesseeds oeetes Milliman v. N. Y. C. & H. BR. R. R., 109 App. Div. 139 94, 206, 279, 439, 535 Millman ». Appleton, 139 App. Div. Mintram v. N. Y. Ontario & W. R. R. Co., 104 App. Div. 38 .. ..188, 334, 466 Mitchaltree ». Stair & Wilbur, 135 App. Div. 210....... 115, 227, 488, 530 Moest v. City of Buffalo & Co. of Erie, ' 116 App. Div. 657............. 73, 484 Moglia v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 243.....62, 318, 458, 483 Molloy »v. Starin, 113 App. Div. 852 4, 25, 302, 321 Molloy »v. Starin, 191 N. Y. 21. .3, 302, 321 Molloy ». Starin, 1384 App. Div. Monahan »v. Empire City Subway Co., 52 Misc. 566..............05. 182, 231 Monck ». Brooklyn Heights R. R., 97 App. Div. 447... ............, 268, 519 Moore »v. Otto Gas Engine Co., 136 App: Divs 713: sevssaevaueesenass Moore v. Rochester R. R., 143 App. Divio8b0s 2A. ncaesae enn 47, 240, 525 Moore v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R. Co., 133 App. Div. 396. .44, 180, 237, 448, 359, 476 Moore ». N. Y. City R. R. Co., 52 Mise. 663.0 ¢¢080c. eae oe rade aes Moore v. Westchester Elec. R. R., 115 _ App. Div. 62............. 50, 236, 513 Moore v. Coaler, 114 App. Div. 301 23, 299, 316 Moppar 2. Wiltchik, 56 Misc. 676.288, 449 Moran »v. City of N. Y., 98 App. Div. SUL p.nvowincuies eee jews 223, 447, 507 Moran v. Mulligan, 110 App. Div. 208 137, 158, 297, 545 Moran v. Carlson, 95 App. Div. 116.. 72 Morgan v. Woolverton, 136 App. Div. DO Linid nls ea Gait Mben made eas ete seas 320 Morhard ». Richmond Light & R. R. Co., 111 App. Div. 353. .......... 63 Moriarty v. City of N. Y., 182 App. Diy 3. eats ees 162, 218, 408, 434 Morris ». Zimmerman, 138 App. Div. ADA, 3. aang eid aig tanta thw Gratis 2 287 Morris v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 100 App. Div. 295............. 11, 78, 397 Morrow »v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 119 App. Div. 22 174, 253, 321, 450 Morse v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 102 App. Div. 495............. 40, 473 Moscarello v. Haines, 130 App. Div. LOD aks snk Sage he eae cinema 105, 356 xliv TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Moses Co. v. Interborough R. T. Co., 113 App.-Div. 577.....59, 177, 250, 539 Mosier v. Weil-Haskell Co., 187 App. Moskowitz v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 89 App. Div. 425 .. ..174, 254, 449 Motzing v. Excelsior Brewing Co., 107 App. Div. 275...............22-. 531 Mowers ». Municipal Gas Co., 142 App. Div. 169. ....... 82, 122, 392, 443 Muhlmeyer v. Koehler & Co., 51 Misc. Ooch ap reais cece 1, 105, 296, 304 Muhs ». Fire Insurance Salvage Corps, 89 App. Div. 389................ 278 Muldoon ». City Fireproofing Co., 134 App. Div. 453 ....... 139, 181, 282, 367 Mullane v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Mise;,.24.,% deFas eseis is Bass 173, 257 Mullen v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 89 App. Div. 21... .............. 243 Mulleney ». McDonald, 130 App. Div. ee en 134, 294, 501 Muller ». Vesell, 117 App. Div. TDi atria Menlo nid Goce dl Sasa ashe alone 66, 98 Muller v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Mise. 640. ..........-.05. 50, 235, 333 Muller v. Oakes Mfg. Co., 113 App. Dives 689 os cose nesa yactew ee eile 83, 346 Muller v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 48 Misc. 524 .. seated OD Mulligan ». McDonald, 135 App. Div. 586.e hs cow eeleeabene tien 56, 410, 533 Mulligan ». Thompson Brothers, 143 App. Div. 413. .......... 110, 280, 461 Mulligan v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 89 App. Div. 207 .. . .255, 309, 518 Mulligan ». 3rd Ave. R. R. Co., 87 App. Div. 820.............-2---5 Mullin v. Genesee Co. Elec. L. P. & Gas Co., 202 N. Y. 275....... 273, 360, 499 Mullins v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 183 We Ve 190s 4. cou aap aawe 222, 507 Mullins v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 95 App. Div: 284s oui eadard peionias 224, 293 ‘Mulvey v. City of N. Y., 114 App. (PR BIG osc casek seeaae es 129, 279, 317 Munro v. Wells Bros. Co., 116 App. Divs 663ig-deacewediaw ii 148, 395, 444 Murphy ». Erie R. R., 134 App. Div. OD os nate abet alae eat te beat atlanta 347 Murphy »v. American Ice Co., 148 App. Dive Sl s64 to Socket aa caninadies 216 Murphy »v. City of N. Y., 128 App. Divi AGSieaas Geeceieacd 81, 383, 433, 445 Murphy »v. City of N. Y., 142 App. Dive G2'o-n-os awe pasha nbe 219, 443, 509 Murphy v. Hudson R. Telephone Co., 127 App. Div. 450. ........ 63, 273, 463 Murphy v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 56 Misc. 598 .. . .268, 328, 343, 422, 521 Murphy »v. Erie R. R. Co., 202 N. Y. DAD ii aatile UN wes EAS 40, 186, 349 Murphy ». Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 110 App. Div. 717............. 51, 324 Murphy v. Union R. R. Co., 47 Mise. Be onseata ia cara 168, 256 Murphy »v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 105 App. Div. 110............. 58, 242 Murphy »v. Wait, 102 App. Div. 121 5, 9, 311 Murphy 2. City of N. Y., 89 App. Div. Murray v. Interurban St. R. R., 118 App. Div. 35. ........... 167, 265, 349 Murtagh » Joline, 70 Misc. 251 247, 335, 477 TABLE OF CASES CITED xlv [References are to Pages] N Naniko ». Interboro Rapid Transit Co., 140 App. Div. 378. .......... 212 Nappa v. Erie R. R. Co., 195 N. Y. 176 360, 369 Nash v. Crane Co., 141 App. Div. 665 100, 353, 502 National Exchange Bank of Albany ». Lester, 119 App. Div. 786. . . .165, - 314, 391, 440 Neadham v. Interborough R. T. Co., 48 Mise. 522................. 177, 252 Neagle v. Syracuse Bing. & N. Y. R. R. 109 App. Div. 339............. 58, 197 Neagle ». Syracuse Bing. & N. Y. R. Ra 185N. Vo 270 . 22u5cakienviens 496 Neale (Incorporated) ». New York Steam Co., 147 App. Div. 725. .15, 229 Neary v. Citizens R. R. Light & P. Co., 110 App. Div. 769. .......... 253 Neary v. Development & Foundry Co., 146 App. Div. 166......... 47, 139 Necker v. Frank, 43 Mise. 159....... 14 Nelson v. Long Island R. R., 109 App. Pig G0 bdo deveiovucnyse 40, 187, 474 Nelson v. City of N. Y., 101 App. Div. TS cxgracausase asesee 84, 435, 485, 538 Nelson »v. Young, 91 App. Div. Netterfield v. N. Y. City R. R., 129 App. Div. 56............ 239, 514, 523 Neuberger v. Long Island R. R. Co., 131 App. Div. 885... .196, 276, 420, 457, 476, 535 Neumeiler ». Central Brewing Co. of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 101..... 152, 423 Newman v. N. Y. Queens Co. R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 12..... 48, 180, 233, 323, 522 Newmark ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 58......... 196, 469 Newton v. N. Y.. N. H. & H.R. R., 106 App. Div. 415... .44, 350, 378, 401, 454 Newton v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 96 App. Div. 81....... .....188, 320, 465 New York City ». Foster, 72 Misc. 67. 300 New York v. Hearst, 142 App. Div. GABE x cp cecce Rate SS 84, 433, 444, 445 New York City v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 90 App. Div. 66. ........ 54, 366 N. Y. Bread Co. ». N. Y. City R. R. Co., 46 Misc. 89. ................ 52 Nichols v. Searle Mfg. Co., 134 App. Div. 62....... 69, 96, 356, 400, 437, 497 Nichols v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 61 Mise. 195...... eaaraetees 203, 387, 469 Nichols v. City of New Rochelle, 105 App. Divs 77: 22s4.ec0sc080 08 ee Nicholls v. City of N. Y., 128 App. Div. oO aia ener nies 19, 140, 298, 303 Nickel v. Ayer, 141 App. Div. 576.115, 313 Nigro v. Willson, 50 Misc. 656. . . 104, ‘ 109, 296, 481 Nitchman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 146 App. Div. 558... .. 34, 242, 329, 525 Nixon v. Thompson Starrett Co., 131 App. Div. 152........ 89, 213, 437, 505 Noakes v. N. Y.C.& H.R. R. R., 121 App. Div. 716......... 10, 41, 452, 474 Noble ». Hahnemann Hospital, 112 App. Div. 663 ................ 38, 432 Nocera v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 113 App. Div. 419 ..... 2, 235, 302, 356, 401 Norminton v. Interborough R. T. Co., 48 Mise. 526... ................. 177 Norton v. Interurban St. R. R., 50 Miss 628 cues pick as koe 50, 235 xvi TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Normand v. Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 133 App. Div. 474..... 47, 240, 476, 524 Norman v. Dowd, 86 App. Div. DY spedeicdMaaoa cakes wcs eeraa wins 22, 88 Nyboe ». Stern, 65 Misc. 34...... 112, 502 O Oats.v. N. Y. Dock Co., 109 App. Div. Ds co ape k ori hy pao: 59, 87 Oats ». N. Y. Dock Co., 99 App. Div. ABT i) ec hiiy a a aller et scare ihre steal onl os 87, 301 Obenland ». Brooklyn Heights R. R., 127 App. Div. 418... .39, 333, 429, 468, 500 O’Brien v. Erie R. R., 189 App. Div. DO Seki edt seceded ude ees 45, 420 O’Brien v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 129 App. Div. 288... ............ 208, 475 O’Brien v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 833........ 168, 264 O’Brien v. Buffalo Furnace Co., 183 A es ly eee ee eer ere 81, 426 O’Bryan v. State of N. Y., 148 App. DVS DAD Saica serharaes's are dasa ee O’Connor »v. Miller, 134 App. Div. 315 133, 376 O’Connor v. City of Dunkirk, 143 App. Divi i696) 2 ve essa se Geeten 126, 221, 432 Odell ». N. ¥. C. & H.R. R. Ry 113 App. Div. 20 (Brief Syllabi) Odell ». Genesee Construction Co., 145 App. Div. 125................... O’Doherty v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 113 App. Div. 636......... 83, 384, 549 O’Doherty v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 184 App. Div. 298 .. . .83, 347, 383 O’Donahoe ». Duparquat & Co., 67 Misc. 435 O’Donnell v. City of Syracuse, 102 App. Div. 80..........-- 217, 289, 430 O’Donnell v. Welz & Zerweck, 97 App. es ee ee 52, 114, 317 O’Donnell v. City of Syracuse, 184 INE NGS Le tess, ntti dattaa deoratnalaen? 344, 431 O’Hare v. O’Rourke Engineering Co., 135 App. Div. 348......... 26, 150, 352 Ohi & Co. ». Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 113 App. Div. 9 (Mem.)..... 489 O’Keefe 7. Degnon Realty Terminal Imp. Co., 141 App. Div. 701.45, 249, 303 O’Keefe v. Great Northern Elev. Co., 105 App: Divi 83 sceacadaess ates 115 Olcott v. Passaic Steel Co., 122 App. Divs 902 nssaseeeeseend aes 20, 102, 303 O’Leary v. Glenns Falls Gas & E. L. Co., 107 App. Div. 505......... 64, 320 Olopp v. Interborough R. T. Co., 69 Misc. 595........ Babee ae 272, 320, 408 Olsen v. Singer Mfg. Co., 143 App. Dive 142. i savannas ae 359, 407, 455 Olson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 133 App. Div. 445. ....... 174, 266, 524 O’Neil v. N. Y. Queens Co. R. R., 121 Apps Divi 48? cae wvesescasuss 321, 324 O’Neil v. Manufacturers Automatic Sprinkler Co., 143 App. Div. 56 337, 363 Onesti v. Central N. E. R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 554........ 28, 192, 372, 527 Opper »v. Hellinger, 116 App. Div. 261 30, 232, 419, 444 Opper v. Davega, 116 App. Div. 268.. 417 Orafina v. N. Y. City Railroad, 148 App. Div. 417 Orendorf ». N. Y.C. & H.R. RB. R., 119 App. Div. 638....... 207, 308, 349 hk TABLE OF CASES CITED xlvii [References are to Pages] O'Reilly v. Davis, 136 App. Div. 386 6, 139, 399, 422 O’Rourke ». Guy B. Waite Co., 125 App. Div. 825 ... .20, 101, 317, 340, 385 O’Rourke ». Interborough R. T. Co., 46 Mist: 45354 cena d vaueawe wee 60, 252 Orser v. City of N. Y., 127 App. Div. B38 es SLs daeee woe wes 230, 517 Ortolano v. Degnon Contracting Co., 120 App. Div. 59. ......... 95, 277, 486 Osterhout v. D. L. & W. R. R., 138 App: DIVs 625 e306 20 ais See eek es 383 Osterman v. Ware, 135 App. Div. 119 124, 211, 392, 410 Ostrander v. Orange Co. Traction Co., 125 App. Div. 608. ......... 1, 356, 463 O’Shaughnessey v. Village of Middle- port, 93 App. Div. 93.......... 224, 430 Ovelsen v. Howes Transportation & Cont. Co., 139 App. Div. 158. . .56, 112 ‘Overbaugh ». Wieber, 106 App. Div. DB sis Sess ie aiatas eke slate narteg Mes 77 Owen »v. City of N. Y., 141 App. Div. QT vewevacen 111, 218, 408, 434, 501, 510 Owen v. Retsof Mining Co., 119 App. Divi Gla cs gu Meta aeke Abe 68, 98 Owen v. Retsof Mining Co., 102 App. Divs 130 s-wssadadese as Res 92, 163, 538 Ozogar v. Pierce, Butler & Pierce Mfg. Co., 1384 App. Div. 800. .113, 304, 408, 429, 496 Ozogar v. Pierce, Butler & Pierce Mfg. Co., 55 Misc. 579........ 102, 527 P Pack v. City of N. Y. ef al., 51 Mise. G52: ci pha nie ees in ea 129, 279 Packtor v. City of N. Y., 182 App. Div. A adn a te Gara g 94, 282, 303, 352 Padower v. Interurban Street R. R., 119 App. Div. 185............... Page v. Dempsey, 184 N. Y. 245..... 14 Pagnillo ». Mack Paving & Const. Co., 142 App. Div. 491... .336, 338, 361, 436 Paige ». N.Y. C. & H. R. RB. R. Co., 111 App. Div. 828......... 34, 207, 328 Paine v. Geneva, Waterloo 8S. F. & C. L. Traction Co., 115 App. Div. 729 296, 265, 355, 540: Palin v. Cary Brick Co., 133 App. Div. ASS etal ake iG mene 76, 95, 440, 529 Palmer v. Larchmont Horse R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 341..... 51, 235, 365, 421 Palmer v. Larchmont Horse R. R., 95 App. Div. 106................... 53 Palmei v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 144 App. Div. 798... ............ Palmieri . 8. Pearson & Son (ine.), 128 App. Div. 231....... 151, 370, 448, 496 Palmi Jiano ». Hyde-McFarlin Co., 126 App. Div. 221............... Papazian v. Baumgartner, 49 Misc. 244 21, 182, 458 Pardington v. Abraham, 93 App. Div. Parks v. City of N. Y., 111 App. Div. Bel secies 18, 75, 221, 358, 394, 432 Parodi v. Tilford, 136 App. Div. 734.. 282 Parsons v. Syracuse B. & N. Y. R. R., B05 WY 208s ccaasarsyeaads 210, 477 Parsons v. Syracuse Bing. & N. Y. R. R., 133 App. Div. 461 39, 209, 319, 514 Pase v. Woodside Heights Land Corp., 124 App. Div. 891............... Pastore v. Livingston, 72 Misc. 555.31, 330 Paul ». Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 113 App. Div. 515... .137, 158, 492, 532 xlvili TABLE OF CASES CITED {References are to Pages] Paul »v. Consolidated Fireworks Co.. 133 App. Div. 310 .75, 84, 275, 294, 533 Paul v. Consolidated Fireworks Co., 141 App. Div. 776. ........ 85, 304, 335 Paulding». N. Y.C. &H. R. R. R. Co., 132 App. Div. 68......... 197, 321, 470 Payne v. N. Y. Susquehanna & West- ern R. R., 141 App. Div. 833... .16 192, 335, 336, 455, 516 Payne v. N. Y. 8S. & W. R. R., 201 Ne YS 436s c 2 chk wee ee ene Pearsall ». N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 128 App. Div. 397. .......... 198, 469, 511 Pearsall v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 189 Ne YATE cone cveraasa gas 198, 468, 474 Pearson v. Ehrich, 148 App. Div. 680 90, 183, 484 Peet 7. Remington & Son, 86 App. Div. App. Dive 71 os sceescscer ee vse 44, 414 Pennica ». D. L. & W. R. R., 148 App. Div. 787 . Penor v. Glens Falls, 138 aa Div. Penunzio v. Central R. R. of N. J., 148 App. Div. 168................0.. People v. Syracuse R. T. Co., 129 App. Div, 800 ccxsevevee 176, 251, 315, 437 People v. Jackson, 125 App. Biv. 873 226, 239, 463 Pepe v. Utica Pipe Foundry Co., 132 App. Div. 458 .. .140, 352, 488, 503, 546 Perelli ». N. Y. City R. R. Co., 120 App. Div. 372..............05065 349 Perez v. Sandrowitz, 180 N. Y. B07 eee eet er ats aie ge 279, 306 Perras v. United Traction Co., 88 App Div260.5 6 sis tains daed aythkwna a 54, 298 Perrotta ». Richmond Brick Co., 123 App. Div. 626........ 27, 125, 160, 487 Persons v. Bush Terminal Co., 68 Mise. Peters v. Kelly, 129 App. Div. 290 ‘ 89, 417, 514 Peters v. Cuneo, 123 App. Div. 740. .8, 395 Peterson 7. Ballantine & Sons, 205 Re aera eatin 183, 453 Peterson v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 210......... 36, 270, 421 Petterson v. Rahtjen’s American Com- position Co., 127 App. Div. 32. .323, 412, 504 Petrie v. Small Realty Co., 141 App. Divi G8h wicactesnsas bask Sas 107, 340 Phelps »v. Erie R. R., 184 App. Div. 729 39, 209, 332, 440, 512 Phelps v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R.R. Co., 48 Misc. 27............. 118, 387, 461 Phenix Ins. Co. ». N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 122 App. Div. 113. .120, 202, 387, 403 Philpot v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 142 App. Div. 811 ...... ...7, 308, 324, 550 Pheenix Bridge Co. v. Creem, 102 App. Di Vis BOF ses seat oe Sih ae ees 223, 341 Pietraroia v. N. J. & H.R. R. & F.Co., 131 App, Divi 82002 idee 272, 524 Pinsdorf v. Kellogg & Co., 108 App. Div. 209........ 126,161, 393, 415, 422 Pirolo v. Hinkle, 137 App. Div. 268... 162 Pitken ». N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 94 App. Div. 31.............. 203, 350 Pitman v. City of New York, 141 App. Div. 670........ 116, 229, 362, 434, 455 Pittel ». Burkhard, 121 App. Div. 571 37, 328 TABLE OF CASES CITED xlix [References are to Pages] Platoff ». Brooklyn Queens Co. Subur- ban R. R. Co., 144 App. Div. 273 181, 189 Pluckham v. American Bridge Co., 104 App. Div. 404........... 210, 531, 536 Plum v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 91 App. Div. 420........... 178, 251, 377 Poland v. United Traction Co., 107 App. Div. 561... ............ 168, 248 Polsky v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 119 App. Div. 855............00. Poole ». American Linseed Co., 119 App. Div. 186 ...152, 160, 393, 423, 486 Poole v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 83 App, Div. 2352.03 csseeeese dae tes 253 Porter v. American Bridge Co., 127 App: Divs died che icasceeians ee 155, 424 Potter ». N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R. Co., 184 App. Div. 827... .39, 209, 476, 477, 512 Potter v. Gilbert, 130 App. Div. 632 185, 287, 308 Pouch v. Staten Island Midland R. R. Co., 142 App. Div. 16.......... 45, 310 Powell v. Cohoes R. R. Co., 136 App. Divi-204 oi salnsares sis ote aetna 45 Power v. Arnold Engineering Co., 142 App. Div. 401 .............. 6, 41, 310 Powers v. Village of Mechanicsville, 140 App. Div. 835. ....... 163, 230, 434 Powers v. 1st National Bank of Amenia 133 App. Div. 257......... 91, 359, 501 Powers ». Village of Moravia, 123 App. Div. 19) vases sis oe ata 219, 508 Powers v. City of N. Y., 121 App. Div. ABB vn odes titers waves eons SEG eS 219, 405 Powers v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 105 App. Div. 358... ............. 52, 454 _ Powers v. Jughardt, 101 App. Div. 53 312 Powers v. Owego Bridge Co., 97 App. Div. 477..... fea dae hee sn ie 36, 110 Powles v. Halstead et al., 93 App. Div. 549, 278 Pratt 1. McKee, 147 App. Div. 72.... 58 Pratt v. McKee, 185 App. Div. 752 56, 112, 359, 367, 506, 529 Predmore v. Consumer’s L. & P. Co., 99 App. Div. 551...... 64, 329, 350, 448 Preiss v. City of New York, 69 Misc. AOD ice, Tae Watt Lie ast aaa 217, 293, 510 Prenderville v. Coney Island & Brook- lyn R. R., 181 App. Div. 303..... Presky ». Degnon, McLean Contract- ing Co., 125 App. Div. 381....... Prince v. Central N. E. R. R., 147 App. PWS AB Gis aoc 5c ues aie yee de as Pritchard v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 89 App. Div. 269............. 234, 278 Proctor v. Rockville Center Milling & Const. Co., 141 App. Div. 900. . 26, 125, 370, 411, 412, 489 Pulcino v. Long Island R. R. Co., 125 App. Div. 629 ............... 208, 475 Pulis ». Stewart, 75 Misc. 268. .22, 148, 376, 465 Purcell ». Union R. R. Co., 58 Mise. DAD ies casted epee elradedooras 271, 310, 319 Purcell ». Hoffman House, 97 App. DIV BOW ae: Ses Rare gins ees -, 83, 306 Purdy ». City of N. Y., 126 App. Div. BBO ais cabal: 92, 111, 219, 359, 429, 509 Pymm ». City of N. Y., 111 App. Div. B00: sy eke aaae ee esa Eee 221, 432 - 231 Quigg ». Post & McCord, 131 App. Div. 155........ 107, 218, 369, 489, 551 I TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Quigley v. Thatcher, 144 App. Div. 710 213, 515 Quinn v. National Sugar Refining Co., 102 App. Div. 47................ Quinn v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 91 App. Div. 489.24, 2438, 300, 332, 492 Quinn v. City of N. Y., 145 App. Div. 195.0 ssiseeWiaGe. sens eees 224, 233, 479 Quinlan v. Richmond Light & R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 402... . .32, 242, 326 Quirlan ». N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 89 App. Div. 266 . .17, 19, 200, 441 Quinlan v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 191 Nie ¥. 329 sie on a yates ce ees 62, 371, 528 Quinlan v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 107 App. Div. 176........... 374, 375, 526 R Raab ». Hudson River Telephone Co., 139 App. Div. 286... ..........4. 61 Racine 2». Morris, 136 App. Div. BOT siicca aly coun eo cea es OSes aes MS Racine v. Morris, 201 N. Y. 240. .97, 185, 364, 516 Radley v. Shopiro, 114 App. Div. 659 157, 486 Raible v. Hygienic Ice & Refrigerator Co., 184 App. Div. 705...... . .8, 506 Ramsay v. Arbuckle, 147 App. Div. G85. 3 Gio a bh htm oes 2 aiecekahire eras 156 Randall ». Holbrook Cont. Co., 95 App, Div 986. dciebvdecvaeniaes 375 Randazzo ». Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co, 121 App. Div. B18 ace eawdatner aioe 167, 462, 521 Rashkoff v. Erie R. R., 141 App. Div. 624: eecce snes ae bee 109, 194, 281, 440 Raynor v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 106 App. Div. 449. .......... 168, 252, 401 Razey v. Colt Co., 106 App. Div. 103 82, 123, 425, 547 Read ». N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 123 App. Div. 228...... 10, 41, 311, 474 Recktenwald v. Erie R. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 490........ 34, 207, 384, 474 Redhead v. Dunbar & Sullivan Dredg-. ing Co., 116 App. Div. 34. .57, 387, 373, 381, 382 Reed ». Metropolitan St. R. R., 180 Mi Vie ow arate 166, 246 Reed v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 87 App. Div. 427 2. 0. cee eee eee 166, 245 Reeves v. 14th St. Store, 110 App. Divs (30 oe. 2o see ain vk 228, 324 Regan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 115 App. Div. 705........... 243, 339, 382 Reich v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 120 App. Di 448s heiaawdnks 155, 211, 343, 442 Reid Ice Cream Co. v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 97 App. Div. 308. ........... 519 Reid v. Long Island R. R., 144 App. DIVE 260 ei55 OS cans ele Bas 179, 188 Reilley ». Troy Brick Co., 125 App. Dive 826 eae pw aveeniae ces 95, 305, 438 Reilly v. Troy Brick Co., 184 N. Y. 399 77, 96 Reilly v. Troy Brick Co., 108 App. Div. 108 si es eee niderie seats ah 79, 379 Reilly v. Interurban St. R. R., 108 App. Div. 254............... 132, 254 Reinertsen v. Erie R. R., 142 App. Div. Blas ek rakes te raaane tes 193, 490, 496 Relyea v. Central N. E. R. R., 137 App. Div. 12................0.0. TABLE OF CASES CITED h [References are to Pages] Rende». N. Y. & Texas Steamship Co., 187 N. Y. 382........ 285, 293, 319, 498 Reris v. Haines, 134 App. Div. 402 74, 95, 464, 479, 546 Retter ». Olean St. R. R., 140 App. DWE OOF i. Seis ania kare pel exe nears 243 Reuter v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 141 App. Div. 669........... 174, 266, 470 Rex ». Brooklyn & Coney Island R. R., 146 App. Div. 905...... 176, 240 Reynolds v. Seneca Falls Mfg. Co., 137 App. Div. 446 .............. 72 Reynolds v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 148 App. Div. 345 ........ 17, 193, 543 Reynolds ». Larchmont Horse R. R. Co., 83 App. Div. 189. ........... 237 Rhatigan v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 136 App. Div. 727 Riccio v. International R. R. Co., 63 Misc. 588 ........ 266, 331, 385, 543 Rice v. Hogan, 45 Misc. 400.......... 289 Rice v. Interurban St. R. R., 121 App. Dive (14s dusts cece eoea oe es Rich v. Pa. R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 818 anus ic eee ng aeorewies 191, 386, 466 Richardson ». N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 122 App. Div. 120 ........ 24, 56, 321, 342, 442 Rieser ». Metropolitan Express Co., 541 45 Misc. 632)...2..5. 622002060305 322 Riggs v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 34 App. Div. 672 ...2........ 79, 319, 341, 404, 433, 488 Riggs v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 202 N. Y. 129 bic encase ese wie eee nt 61, 81 Ring v. Nassau Electric R. R., 115 App. Div. 674...............0... 270 Riola ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 97 190 ADD: DIV. 252i erate ina dateus es Riordan v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 41 Mist, 899 j02cc.suitucourcunes 195, 276 Ripp v. Fuchs, 129 App. Div. 321 90, 111, 200, 370, 402, 500 Ristau v. Coe Co., 120 App. Div. 478 114, 276, 481, 482 Robinson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 128 App. Div. 677 ....... 139, 208, 475 Robinson v. Consolidated Gas Co. of N.Y., 125 App. Div. 914 Robinson v. Consolidated Gas Co., 57 Mise. 155 Robinson v. Union R. R. Co., 121 App. Di¥ 508 .gqoas eet cee asan cies 271 Robinson v. Crimmins, 120 App. Div. 228, 409, 417, 491 Robinson ». Crosstown St. R. R., 118 App. Div. 584 ........ 49, 238, 421, 521 Robinson v. Empire City Subway Co., 53 Misc. 596 ......... +... 82, 296, 392 Robinson v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 103 App. Div. 243 ......... 52, 447, 549 Robinson v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 91 App. Div. 158......... 54, 180, 330, 536 Roche »v. India Rubber, ete., Co., 115 App. Div. 582............. 28, 152, 423 Rockland Lake Trap Rock Co. ». Le- high Valley R. R., 115 App. Div. 628g. ate esas dheee ee ee ate 285, 319 Rockstrow v. Astoria Marble Co., 121 App. Div. 144........ 108, 124, 358, 442 Rodrigues v. Village of Ossining, 111 _ App. Div, 297.00... cece eevee eee Roedecker ». Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 87 App. Div. 227............ Roenbeck v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 123 App. Div. 606........ 140, 277, 336, 438, 541 lii TABLE OF CASES CITED ‘ [References are to Pages] Rogers v. Jones, 115 App. Div. 576 148, 280 Rogers v. City of Rome, 96 App. Div. AND) te iiss le oy Shah eae dee eeleninthe 99 Romaine v. Village of Spring Valley, 120 App. Div. 501 ............ 220 Romanowski »v. City of Tonawanda, 127 App. Div. 814....... 219, 443, 509 Romeo ». Union R. R. Co., 52 Mise. DAO orig bie tee seen e mpg atees 270, 520 Rooney »v. Brogan Const. Co., 147 Apps Divs 68%. ac eves gee hes dees ie 72 Rooney ». Brogan Const. Co. 1138 hn: DEG BSc cseveesnxacs 70, 492, 525 Rooney ». Brogan Const. Co., 107 App, Divs 258. cid vere 71, 99, 415 Roper »v. Ulster Co Agricultural Socy., 136 App. Div. 97........110, 399, 502, 513 Rose v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. &N.Y.C. & H.R. R.R., 108 App. Div. 206 vssccen sconces e 210, 399 Rosenberg v. Schoolherr, 116 App. Dive 289.63 ebsites eanseaad ey 74, 364 Rosenberg v. N. Y. City R. R., 107 App Div.-233 s.:c24.042.48 suki 47, 350 Rosenthal v. United Dressed Beef Co., _ 52 Mise. 166 ............-2.- 157, 396 Rosenthal v. N. Y. & Susquehanna & W. R.R., 112 App. Div. 431... .48, 466, 534 Ross v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 116 App. Div. 507........ 182, 248, 377, 550 Ross v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 104 App. Div. 378............ 127, 248, 438 Roth v. Feld Co., 59 Mise. 214... .116, 227, 416, 514 Rothblatt ». Max Solomon, 59 Misc. UD) iis cher Ba Fae ed engin yea ES 289, 547 Rounds ». Syracuse & Suburban R. R., 134 App. Div. 15................ 471 Rudomin »v. Interurban St. R. R., 111 Div. App. 548............ 259, 377, 457 Reumer v. Clark, 121 App. Div. DBL cs Riau Tah artes! a suas land sass tee yaanes 346 Russell ». Lehigh Valley R. R., 188 Ne Y Bd ae vce weces viet dean 77, 379 Russell v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 104 App. Div. 149............ 268, 339, 454 Russell ». N. Y. C. & H.R. R. R., 96 App: Divs 1]. .eaciec aad anced este 16 Russo v. McLaughlin, 51 Misc. 34. .98, 145 Rutz v. N. Y. City R. R., 107 App. Divs 568; ie 2 gists as ee ees 51, 324, 519 Ryan v. Hawk & Wetherbee, 139 App. P12 GOB se: ideiess esd kus leew caigt ddan noe 156 Ryan v. Cortland Carriage Goods Co., 133 App. Div. 467 ......... 65, 97, 294 Ryan ». Irons, 114 App. Div. 165 214, 228, 498, 504 Ryan v. Phipps, 146 App. Div. 642 112, 332, 386, 544 Ryan »v. 3d Ave. R. R., 92 App. Div. Dei ciascai anemones tee 243, 391 Ryckman ». International R. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 16. (Mem.)........ 539 S Sabatino v. Roebling Const. Co., 136 Apps Die 21% ce kc evendaseds ss 67, 141 Sadlier v. City of N. Y., 104 App. Div. B28 ita shea Gena ime 289, 350, 376, 535 TABLE OF CASES CITED lin [References are to Pages] Salcinger v. Taterurban St. R. R. Co., 52 Misc. 179... ...........004. 50, 236 Sallie ». N. Y. City R. R. Co., 110 App. Div. 665................ 258, 461 Samuels v. McKesson, 113 App. Div. NOPD 46: os Tai Gaussians 70, 365, 481 San Filippo ». American Bill Posting Co., 112 App. Div. 395. .......... 86 Sartirana v. N. Y. County Nat. Bank, 139 App. Div. 597............... Satterly ». Erie R. R. Co., 113 App. Div... 4623 5s pan ctee keene 2, 387, 466 Sauter v. International R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 400. . . 249, 333, 517, 523, 538 Savarese v. Frankel, 180 App. Div. 464 145, 445 Schactele v. Bristor, 148 App. Div. BAB OSs Caren aiewere aie 69, 484 Schapp v. Bloomer, 181 N. Y. 125.215, 414 Schalk v. Commercial Twine Co., 122 App. Div. 521............. 28, 121, 157 Schall v. City of N. Y., 88 App. Div. Schapiro v. Levy; 101 App. Div. 444 106, 297 Schechter v. Berger Mfg. Co., 147 App. sidhoar v. Village of Perry, 119 App. DV = COG: ccocsteiacetane De egacdsise wires Scheib ». N. Y. City R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 578......... 50, 236, 331, 537 Schell ». Town of German Flatts, 123 App. Div. 197.............. 12, 45, 395 Scheller v. Silbermintz, 50 Misc. 175 114, 131, 221, 296, 396 Schermerhorn v. Glens Falls Cement Co., 94 App. Div. 600. .15, 115, 338, 485 Scheu ». Union R. R. Co. of N. Y. City, 112 App. Div. 239........ 168, 264, 457 Schierloh ». Interurban St. R. R., 115 App. Div. 455............ 174, 257, 350 Schindler v. Welz & Zerweck, 145 App. Dive DS2y ond hin alae antes mak 146, 229 Schiverea v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 89 App. Div. 340......... 130, 182 Schlappendorf ». American R. R. Traffic Co., 142 App. Div. 554.295, 358, 443, 482 Schleicher v. City of Mt. Vernon, 107 App. Div. 584........ 129, 396, 431, 441 Schlesinger ». Central R. R. of N. J., TA MSG: Lo iss ave ie Se cr si ates 8 Schmedding v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R. Co., 85 App. Div. 24. .54, 277, 518 Schmidt v. Rohn, 127 App. Div. 220 108, 213, 308, 490 Schmidt ». Bruen, 56 Misc. 1380... .36, 327 Schneider v. City of N. Y., 143 App. DIV 216) eis ose ateey aes 220, 432, 508 Schoeller v. Metropolitan Express Co., 108 App. Div. 226............ 263, 279 Schollhamer v. Hamburger, 63 Misc. CU borer Sete 89, 316, 420 Schoonmaker ». Steers (inc.), 128 App. TG G50 ck oSs caaemeseen 286, 542 Schradin ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 124 App. Div. 705... .477, 515, 546 Schramme v. Lewinson, 126 App. Div. PO pa tautae: 108, 316, 348, 411, 420 Schreiber v. Village of Depew, 137 App. Div. 488................0.. Schultz v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 127 App. Div. 305...... 97, 134, 295, 335 Schuster v. 42nd St. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 197. .231, 254, 521 Schuster »v. F. 8. M. & St. N. A. R. R. Co., 192 N. Y. 403........ 249, 517, 522 liv TABLE OF CASES CITED (References are to Pages] Schuster v. Erie R. R. Co., 145 App. Dive (lo vitenws 4 bras es 197, 378, 510 Schwartz v. Onward Const. Co., 130 App. Div. 588......... 72, 141, 363, 385 Schwartz v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 55 Wise S18: pviadescereceasaved 170, 261 Schwartz v. Monday, 49 Misc. 527.87, 297, 418 Scialo v. Steffens, 105 App. Div. 592 157, 344, 414 Sciolaro v. Asch, 198 N. Y.77........ 416 Sciolaro v. Asch, 129 App. Div. SOS acsels Sh a oe eee 73, 417 Scofield ». Town of Poughkeepsie, 122 App. Div. 868............. 41, 281, 460 Scott v D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 136 App. Div. 347................. 13, 502 Scott v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 697......... 77, 428, 503, 534 Scott v. Nauss Brothers Co., 141 App. Div. 255. .67, 97, 307, 363, 380, 404, 483, 501 Scott v. Curtis, 195 N. Y. 424..... 111, 218 Scott v. International Paper Co., 125 App. Div. 318......... 27, 151, 378, 393 Scott v. International Paper Co., 204 Ng Vie AQ sig ab ook Weenies Gua ae 153, 394 ‘Seager v. Solvay Process Co., 129 App. Dies SG ele aue ee ous ewsek 82, 440 Sealey v. Metropolitan St. R. Re Co., 87 App. Div. 200.2... 02 s0cvece- Seaman v. Mott, 127 App. Div. 18. .7, 310, 333, 454 See v. Wormser, 129 App. Div. 596. .3, 9, 551 Seidman v. Long Island R. R. Co., 104 App. Div. 4: cccseas visas 140, 3438, 473 Sembler ». Cowperthwait, 53 Mise. 28 118, 317 Serano v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 188 N.Y. 156......... 34, 327, 845, 350, 513 Serano v.N. Y.C. & H. R. R.R., 114 App. Div. 684..............0506. Seredinski v. Balaban, 136 App. Div. 2033 Fee Gad, Bigscr snes 146, 410, 416 Sereno v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 145 App. Div. 186................ 191, 375 Severson v. Hill-Warner Fitch Co., 116 App. Div. 108......... 28, 160, 373, 494 Shane v. National Biscuit Co., 102 App. Div. 188............ 223, 403, 456 Shannon v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 88 App. Div. 349............0000. 44, 188 Shannahan »v. Empire Engineering Corp., 204 N. Y. 543...... 122, 347, 437 Sharp v. Erie R. R. Co., 184 N. Y. 100 196, 276, 299, 384, 465, 549 Sharp v. Erie R. R. Co., 90 App Div. DO2e esa ce ede deaee se eee eS 185, 196 Shatzman v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 55 Misc. 300................00045 40, 540 Shaw v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 126 App. Div. 210........ 199, 391, 479, 500 Shaw v. Feltman, 121 App. Div. 597. . 124, 336, 337 Shea v. Westinghouse Elec. Mfg. Co., 147 App. Div. 660............... 192 Sheehan v. Nassau Elec. R. R. Co., 143 App. Div. 621........ 167, 171, 259, 467 Sheehan »v. Standard Gas Light Co., 87 App. Div. 174...............0... 88 Sheeron v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R. Co., 89 App. Div. 338. .173, 255, 449 Sheldon ». N. Y.C. & H.R. R.R., 148 App. Div. 396.......... 5, 205, 472, 518 Shepard v. Wood, 116 App. Div. 861 41, 303, 314 TABLE OF CASES CITED lv [References are to Pages] Shepard v. Bellew & Merritt Co., 101 App. Div. 257......... cue ees 129, 148 Sheppard ». N. Y. City R. R. Co., 56 Mise. 689........0......000 00 ee 172 Sheppard v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 146 App. Div. 806........ 179, 247 Sheridan v. Interborough R. T. Co., 115 App. Div. 282............ 214, 441 Sheriden v. Interborough R. T. Co., 101 App. Div. 534............ 215, 545 Sherwood ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 120 App. Div. 639. .10, 42, 354, 451 Shields ». Pugh & Co., 122 App. Div. D8Oes saad ss oe ee os 20, 447, 515 Ship v. Fridenburg, 132 App. Div. 782 56, 120, 352, 401, 407, 457 Shipman v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 147 App. Di¥. 388 «ac csgca0 cack eens 204 Shutter v. McClintic-Marshall Const. Co., 122 App. Div. 293........ 128, 544 Sienbida ». Tonawanda Board & Paper Co., 121 App. Div. 70.......36, 77, 526 Silverman v. Binder, 130 App. Div. OST) ga daca coe wine Aeneas 88, 287, 399 Silverberg v. City of N. Y., 59 Misc. HOD areca she, oor t Sil acely 288, 547 Silverblatt v. Brooklyn Telegraph & Messenger Co., 73 Misc. 38.144, 323, 342 Simkoff v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 190 Ne ¥ 2256.2. ctotensemangecaes s 207, 327 Simons v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 142 App. Div. 36... .. 244, 472, 522, 543 Simonoff v. Fox, 46 Misc. 249....... 162 Simpson v. Whitman, 147 App. Div. Simpson »v. Foundation Co., 132 App. Div. 375. ...... 57, 91, 138, 368, 437, 512 Simpson ». Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. BIO. seca 78, 134, 371, 403, 408, 455, 550 Simpson v. Interborough R. T. Co., 141 App. Div. 148... .411, 488, 501, 548 Sitts ». Waiontha Knitting Co., 94 App. Div. 38.......... 29, 153, 414, 415 Siverson v. Jenks, 102 App. Div. 313 212, 498 Smetanka ». N. Y. C.& H. R.R. R. Co., 123 App. Div. 323.148, 208, 419, 474 Smith ». Miliken Bros., 200 N. Y. 21 150, 439 Smith v. Brady, et al., 136 App. Div. OOS ise one he Oi pe weed 340 Smith v. Rochester R. R. Co., 133 App. Div; 82% << vases eves 32, 139, 325, 326 Smith v. Long Island R. R. Co., 129 Ao. Diy OT ice ovcgu sw exon: 226, 335 Smith v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 635... ..... 170, 262, 410 Smith v. Green Fuel Economizer Co., 123 App. Div. 672... .147, 155, 424, 462 Smith ». Wesel Mfg. Co., 117 App. Divs 884. sccaeesey es 152, 827, 354, 423 Smith ». Manhattan R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 202............. 63, 403, 532 Smith ». London Assurance Corpora- tion, 109 App. Div, 882...1, 15, 315, 345 Smith v. Donnelly, 93 App. Div. 569 bone : 87, 418 Smith v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 92 Apps Div, 218) acccok ca genic Ge 52, 180 Smith ». N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 177 Smith v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 177 N.Y B79vev eres 205, 346, 351, 455, 548 Smith v. N. Y. Chicago & St. L. R. R. Co., 86 App. Div. 188. ........ 190, 406 Smith v. Variety Iron & Steel Co., 147 App. Div. 242................ 216, 505 lvi TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Smith v. Variety Iron & Steel Co., 72 Smyth v. City of N. Y., 203 N. Y. 106 83, 164, 293 Snitten »v. Brown, 52 Misc. 569, 105, 220, 232, 448 Snowden v. Town of Somerset, 100 App. Div. 39..................0.. 128 Sobol ». Union R. R. Co., 122 App. DIVE S17 oe sys oes Wea eee 241, 522 Solomon v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 50 Mise: 557.0 cs0e esac eda eas 269, 343, 520 Solomon v. Buffalo R. R. Co., 96 App. DIVE ABT sse-c eh aieiate Reuse aed 52, 519 Soronan v. VonPostau, 112 App. Div. ABT: eeactkeined Ae ana ely ahr 4, 196, 302 Spaeth v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 819............. 83, 177, 247 Spannknebel ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 345......... 436, 475 Specht ». Waterbury Co., 70 Misc. 404 35, 326, 353, 387, 408, 440, 478 Speck v. International R. R. Co., 133 App. Div. 802........ 166, 267, 454, 524 Spencer v. State of N. Y., 187 N. Y. ABE da paigdet easie asters tells Venta an tele cade 135, 439 Spencer v. State of N. Y., 110 App. Div. 585 nih ou Tate e lane tiie as 105 Spencer v. N. ¥Y.C. & H.R. R. RyCo., 123 App. Div. 789 Sperry v. Union R. R. Co., 129 App. Div.c5945. 2 oh sas ca 5 eee 271, 323 Spila ». N. Y. C. & H.R. R.R., 147 App. Div. 666.................... 207 Stackpole ». Wray, 99 App. Div. 262 68, 480 Stack ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. RB. Co., 96 App. Div. 575 Stadelmann ». City of N. Y., 126 App. DIV; B02 o0diene tenet ones 111, 127, 509 Stanbridge v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 185 App. Div. 38. .45, 240, 332, 525 Starer v, Stern, 100 App. Div. 393 . 68, 406, 531 Staskowski v. Standard Oil Co., 127 App. Div. 17......... 105, 360, 424, 460 Stassen » N. Y. City R. R. Co., 52: Mises D0 enwkese ae Wee gba 270, 520 Statler ». Ray Mfg. Co., 125 App. Di GOs sc esndavadiaiees 83, 323, 516 Statler ». Ray Mfg. Co., 195 N. Y. ATB oi ao atialarhcd 85, 307, 348, 352, 425 Stedman »v. Town of Osceola, 71 Mis6.2186) accede cineca cee 131, 462 Stedman v. Town of Osceola, 147 App. Steel Drake Baking Co., v. Piercy Contracting Co., 140 App. Div. 113 283, 536 ‘Steinacker v. Hills Bros. Co., 91 App. De B20 | Saket a dlan xen deun nea 278, 453 Steinberg v. Bender & Sons, 125 App. Divi 564) nessa cee de uasices 27, 151, 295 Steinbrenner v. Forney Co., 143 App. DWE 78: 4 cotetis aes ce 231, 395, 435 Stelter v. Cordes, 146 App. Div. 300 121, 484 Stenger v. Buffalo Union Furnace Co., 109 App. Div. 183 Stenger v. Buffalo Union Furnace Co., 98 App. Div. 361 Stenson v. Flick Const. Co., 146 App. Div. 66 Stern ». Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 140 App. Div. 109 Stern », Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 193 N. Y. 328 ........... 204, 384, 463 TABLE OF CASES CITED lvil [References are to Pages] Stern v. Miller, 60 Misc. 103 ....148, 227, 316, 336, 420, 478 Stern v. Westchester Elec. R. R. Co., 99 App. Div. 491 ........ 178, 255, 338 Stevenson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 137 App. Div. 742 Stevenson v. Joline, 127 App. Div. 181 259, 295, 451 Stevens v. Gair, 109 App. Div. 621 29, 161 Stewart v. Hinkle Iron Co., 141 App. i, ot uh-autranaeiou: 133, 226, 386 Stewart v. Baruch, 103 App. Div. 577 8, 311 Sticht v. Buffalo Cereal Co., 116 App. Div. 632. .........05- 85, 350, 423, 537 Sticht v. Buffalo Cereal Co., 195 N. Y. Ti cacconkin avenue aos 380, 463 Stiles ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 142 App. Div. 917........-..5- 18, 192 Stillings ». Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., ATT ING Nic B44: es wtieanian sees 267, 472 Stinson v. Edgewater Saw Mills Co., 139 App. Div. 169 Stokes v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 134 App. Div. 363. .67, 96, 309, 363, 392 Stokes ». N. Y. Life Insurance Co., 112 App. Div. 77...... 108, 214, 414, 503 Storrs v. Northern Pacific R. R., 148 App. Div. 403......--+++seeees 44, 389 Stratton v. City of N. Y. 190 N. Y. Bicone alas tien 111, 231, 307 Stratton ». City of New York, 117 App. Div. 887. ..-..60+505 128, 220, 507 Strauss ». Buchman, 96 App. Div. 270 21, 301, 526 Strauss v. N. Y., N. H. & H.R. R. Co., 91 App. Div. 583...... 16, 190, 389 Strembel v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 110 App. Div. 23 Strickland ». N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 88 App. Div. 367. .35, 200, 309, 472 Strobel v. Liebmann, 197 N. Y. 348 35, 141, 145, 416 Strobel ». Liebmann, 133 App. Div. Strong v. Rutland R. R. Co., 121 App. Die OE | psasvwtddicersn 198, 486, 495 Sturgis v7. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 122 App. Div. 658... . .59, 181, 227, 296, 303 Sukert v. Halperin, 146 App. Div. BBS act Gat Bake eed Hal dee gone aoe 105, 225 Sullivan v. Richmond L. & R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 175 ........... 254, 496 Sullivan v. Schweinler, 142 App. Div. OW Ace sinusisaiaaies 160, 324, 393, 423 Sullivan ». Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 117 App. Div. 784..... 62, 248, 296 Sullivan ». City of Rome, 86 App Div. Surkin ». Interborough St. R. R. Co., 45 Misc. 407 ............-.--- 258, 538 Sutherland ». Ammann, 112 App. Div. 982 cies ivici ene aera A 215, 374, 503 Sutton v. Erie R. R. Co., 145 App. Div. 122 Swarts v. Wilson Mfg. Co., 115 App. Dive 78026 aeenva sce g ee vis 137, 155, 157 422, 486, 491 Sweet v. Perkins, 115 App. Div. 784 128, 396 Sweet v. Perkins, 196 N. Y. 482 9, 230, 394, 437, 464 Swenson v. Wilson & Bailie Mfg. Co., 102 App. Div. 477 lvili TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Tages] Swift & Co. » N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 136 App. Div. 34... .834, 361, 544 Swift ». Brooklyn Heights R. R., 134 App. Div. 184............. 79, 126, 517 Tabor v. City of Buffalo, 136 App. Div. Tamaseric v. Beckwith, 145 App. Div. MBs Gi sitions Dank aches! LOIS 58, 136, 429, 526 Tannhauser v. Uptegrove & Bro., 114 App. Div. 764..... 28, 152, 479, 486 Taylor v. Village of Matteawan, 122 App. Div. 406................ 315, 544 Telhanis ». Owens, 137 App. Div. Thaney v. Frederick & Sons Co., 44 Mises 104 ca wins. 4 ee ree yeuasts 71 Thayer v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R. Co., 117 App. Div. 318... .195, 377, 381, 513 Thayer v. Utica Knitting Co., 183 INS Vil Siniepn aie dak waes laa 29, 153, 426 Thomas ». City of N. Y., 146 App. Div. Bh ic earn oo 233, 434, 448 Thomas v. Springer, 134 App. Div. 640 133, 274, 427, 484 Thompson v. Town of Bath, 142 App. Divis3 lie ass Wer vee 17, 127, 315, 462 Thompson v. United Traction Co., 147 App. Div. 392................ 183, 254 Thompson v. Post & McCord, 143 App. Div. 394..... 57, 103, 304, 386, 442 Thompson v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 89 App. Div. 10... ........... 267, 510 Thompson v. Leon, 144 App. Div. 919 36, 146 Thornton v. Interurban St. R. R., 128 App. Div. 872... ....0.6.08¢e00 G08 Tiaden v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 145 App. Div. 581...........-. 33, 242 Tiedjen v. National Elevator Co., 141 App. Div. 529.,....... 69, 212, 298, 411 Tiedjen v. National Elevator Co., 130 App. Div. 504... .100, 213, 294, 404, 412 Tierney v. Vunck, 97 App. Div. 1. . 108, 215 Tietz v. International R. R. Co., 186 ING Vs OAs seas as Sls Gas See ee eS Tingley v. Long Island R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 798..............5- 206, 474 Titus v. Tangeman, 116 App. Div. 487 128, 304 Tivnan v. Keahon, 117 App. Div. 50 123, 159, 355, 300, 386, 403, 423 Tolkon v. Otto E. Rainer Co., 125 App. 147 App. Div. 138......... 14, 375, 378 Toohey »v. Interurban St. R. R., 102 App. Div. 296................ 438, 519° Tooker ». Fowler & Sellars Co., 147 App. Div. 164........ 132, 144, 312, 376 Toppi v. McDonald, 128 App. Div. BAD re citeln week dena Weanats 95, 436, 500 Torgesen v. Schultz, 192 N. Y. 156 80, 383, 530 Tourtelotte v. Westchester Elec. R. R. Co., 120 App. Div. 417. ....:.:172, 541 Town of South East ». City of N. Y., 96 App. Div. 598: ..-.......... 290, 300 Toye v. United Dressed Beef Co., 141 App. Div. 332........ 125, 392, 425, 488 Tracey v. Williams, 127 App. Div. 126 108, 412 TABLE OF CASES CITED lix [References are to Pages] Travers v. Murray, 87 App. Div. 552 - 21, 88 Travis », Haan, 128 App. Div. 77 159, 370, 490 Travis ». Haan, 119 App. Div. TBS pieces oid Kens SUS Oalaleaee 423 Trentacoste ». Cronin, 132 App. Div. DAO ast unecke acaba 107, 291, 487, 548 Tribastoni ». Rodgers & Hagerty (inc.) 72: Mis 165% < sscceeriee eae a eae et 492 Trieber ». N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 134 App. Div. 661... ......... 262, 346 Trimbey v. Central N. Y. Telegraph Co., 140 App. Div. 657. .......... 146 Trotto v. Bellew & Merritt Co., 127 App. Div. 400........... , 80, 371, 443 Truesdell v. Erie R. R., 119 App. Div. Ble iiss hd deh aby yaileanade aa ase 265 Truesdell ». Erie R. R. Co., 114 App. Divs 84.5 -c2 yen eyerccneeetas 168, 265 Tucker ». Brooklyn Heights R. R., 131 App. Div. 97... ....... 48, 239, 524 Tuohy v.-Long Island R. R. Co., 89 App. Div. 198..........0..-..00. 204 Tully v». N. Y. City R. R., 127 App. Div. 688232 2 ccc cows ye ones 271, 523 Turck v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 108 Appr Divs 142 eases ase saeneneeds 42 Turner v. Degnon McLean Cont. Co., 99 App. Div. 185... ....... 14, 138, 397 Tutt v. City of Rensselaer, 126 App. DIV 0025 ac eee eeaogn 128, 144, 456 Tweed ». Hudson R. Telephone Co., 130 App. Div. 231... 89, 274, 360, 390, 501 Tydeman ». Prince Line Limited, 102 App. Div. 279.........ecceeeeeee 285 Tyrrell v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 110 App. Divi Qed toss sabi cietawe ss .. 263 U Utess v. Erie R. R. Co., 131 App. Div. AA (Sis gah atte told lds Sie at ys vibes 134, 472 Utess v. Erie R. R. Co., 204 N. Y. 324. 195 Utter v. International Paper Co., 134 App. Div. 806........ 229, 277, 383, 385 Valentino ». Garvin Mach. Co., 139 App. Div. 139............... wee. 120 Valvo v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 55, Mis¢.-253...3 seus .ee sae s eau dane 245 _ Van Akin ». Erie R. R. Co., 92 App. Div, 23d aoe tee aderenrenies 119, 322 Van Alstine v. Standard L. H. & P. Go, OR App, Die 88 iaces save 496 Van Alstine v. Standard L. H. & P. Co., 116 App. Div. 100. ........ 62, 461 Van Denbout v. Rochester R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 844........ 165, 266, 523 Van Denbout v. Rochester R. R. Co., 202 No No 6l. dei ee heen eaves 271, 475 Vanderbilt v. Geneva, 132 App. Div. OI oa. eas eat ce cts Oalatsaken 218, 434 Van Derhoff v.N. Y.C.& H.R. R.R., 88 App. Div. 418... ........ 79, 96, 391 Van Haaren v. Long Island R. R., 136 App. Div. 15.......... ... 16, 195, 471 Van Inwegen v. Erie R. R. Co., 126 App. Div. 297............. 43, 187, 483 Van Ostrand v. D. & H. Co., 112 App. Dive T88eeda0 canteen 179, 188, 466 Van Pelt »v. Straight Line Engine Co., 127 App. Div. 829... ............ 114 Vaughn v. Glens Falls Cement Co., 105 App. Div. 136............ 115, 485 Venuta v. N. Y. W. & C. Traction Co., le TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] 87 App. Div. 561......... 20020... 54 Vickery v. Interborough R. T. Co., 126 App. Div. 781............. 46, 175, 463 Viel ». Mack Paving & Const. Co., 144 Rite Div. GOs seb ne tel seuawsies 23 Viemeister v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 91 App. Div. 510. ........ 178, 251 Vilicki ». N. Y. Transportation Co., 65 Mise. 48... ......... 7, 267, 309, 347 Vincent v. Crandall & Godley Co., 131 App. Div. 200.............. 6, 282, 464 Vincenzo v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 126 App. Div. 481... ......... 277, 528 Voegele v. Bardusch, 98 App. Div. 127 29, 153 Vogel v. Bahr, 130 App. Div. 732. . 187, 295, 452 Vogel v. American Bridge Co., 180 IN, Yu@(iivwankoagivesaaices 115, 391 Vogemann v. American Dock & Trust Co., 131 App. Div. 216........... Volosko v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 190 N. Y. 206......... 49, 248, 422, 521 Volosko v. Interurban St. R. R., 113 App. Div. (40 adn oe ce ei ven ens Vonderahe v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 109 App. Div. 28... .......... 168, 264 Vroom ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 129 App. Div. 858...../...... 18}, 449, 477 Wabnick v. Dry Dock East Broadway & Battery R. R., 112 App. Div. 4 33, 241, 328 Wack v. Tobin, 122 App. Div. 704.102, 134 Wade v. Town of Worcester, 134 App. Divi Sli sarees esa ca cee 282, 394, 551 Wade v. City of Mt. Vernon, 133 App. Div, 889:g- vedas see eink wee 218, 551 Wade ». City of Mt. Vernon, 123 App. Divi 296:n0% ews dees sees 219, 230, 454 Waddell v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 98 App. Div. 348..........000000 13, 206 Wagner v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 95 App. Div. 219... .........-4-- Wagner v. N. Y. C. & St. Lawrence R. R., 93 App. Div. 14............ 58, 108 Wanger v. Clausen & Son Brewing Co., 146 App. Div. 70. . 183, 283, 351, 357 Wahler v. Long Island R. R., 1387 App. Rea aaa ose lae hase 209: Wahrman ». Board of Education, 187 Ni YY: 88lic¢ ian cans 86, 211, 315, 505. Wahrman ». City of N. Y. & Board of Education, 111 App. Div. 345. .87, 287, 431, 441 Walden »v. City of Jamestown 178 Nas 218 s¢0 sp atawe yaa ade 224, 430 Waldman »v. Brooklyn Union Elevated R. R., 1386 App. Div. 376. . .88, 204, 484 Walker v. Newton Falls Paper Co., 111 App: Dive 193 2+ sessed gece da 29, 152 Walker v. Gleason, 109 App. Div. 791 87, 287, 418 Walker v. City of N. Y., 107 App. Div. Silesian aceaares 119, 222 Walker v. Newton Falls Paper Co., 99 App. Div. 47 ............0... 161, 538 Wallace ». Town of New Albion, 107 App. Div. 172............... :...4,18 Wallace v. Casey Co., 182 App. Div. BG aed ten eos aes 30, 134, 325, 326, 489 Wallace v. Town of New Albion, 121 App. Div. 66.......... 18, 131, 142, 395 Waller v. Degnon Cont. Co., 120 App. Divs 389. oecece cea tia es 211, 284, 314 TABLE OF CASES CITED Ix1 [References are to Pages] Walsh v. Nassau Elec. R. R., 183 App. Tyo sada eee 93, 266, 407, 455 Walsh ». Continental Iron Works, 124 App. Div. 895................... 101 Walsh v. Richmond Light & R. R. Co., 124 App. Div. 588............ 266, 336 Walsh ». N. Y. Central R. R., 140 App. DIVE ete ter gadis coe cae Gees 210 Walsh v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 114 App. Div, 19 feaiseaesie sea ca wes 257, 320, 520 Walsh »v. Interurban St. R. R., 50 Misc. 637............ 177, 249, 450, 520 Walsh v. City of N. Y., 109 App. Div. ALD 05 st cath hase tad ak Aaa dmache Poste 541 Walsh v. Riesenberg et al., 110 App. Div. 19 (mem.).............. 65, 66, 99 Walsh v. Riesenberg, 94 App. Div. 466 99, 341, 538 Walsh v. Central N. Y. Telephone Co., VO NG Ye 168. be ccs eines 13, 128 Walsh ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 204 NV BS Gcetaaends 204, 351, 449, 506 Ward ». Hill, 125 App. Div. 587. .90, 120, 290, 405 Ward v. Edison Elec. Iuminating Co., 124 App. Div. 22....... 55, 78, 487, 499 Ward »v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 119 App. Div. 487...... 10, 42, 237, 311, 450 Ward ». Brooklyn Heights R. R., 115 App. Div. 104............. 42, 333, 421 Ward ». Metropolitan St. R. R., 99 App. Div. 126..............0.06. Ward v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 95 App. Div. 487...7.........06. 188, 519 Ware v. Ithaca Street R. R., 125 App. DIVs 828) sie eg o-0k Ganley 83, 383, 491 Warner v. Packer, 139 App. Div. 207.. 184 Warren v. Post & McCord, 128 App. Dio aan eeeaticoweces 108, 412, 504 Washington v. Episcopal Church of St. Peter, 111 App. Div. 402........ 71, 98 Watson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 127 App. Div. 134.57, 114, 319, 359, 381, 424 Watson v. City of N. Y., 51 Misc. 653 216, 447, 506 Wazenski ». N. Y. C. & H.R. R. R., 180 N. Y. 466. ...............00. 184 Wecker v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & L. I. R. R., 136 App. Div. 340.272, 488, 514 ‘Wehn ». Interborough R. T. Co., 132 App. Div. 841........ 262, 452, 470, 488 Weill v. City of N. Y., 147 App. Div. OSA siete io da i athe = Get etecnmeontin 8 & .. 179, 286 Weiller ». N. Y. City R. R., 51 Mise. OOSb sc Sedat Sache de er irae ten, 168, 355 Weill v. City of N. Y., 148 App. Div. Weiner ». Scherrer, 64 Misc. 82. .186, 226, 420 Weinert v. Merchants’ & Shippers’ Warehouse Co., 127 App. Div. 826 109, 384, 500 Weintraub v. Guilfoyle, 89 App. Div. O28 ers a Maia eos 37, 278, 410, 549 Weir v. Union R. R. Co. of N. Y. City, 112 App. Div. 109... .104, 249, 406, 481 Weir v. Union R. R. Co., 188 N. Y. 416 350 Weitzmann v. Barber Asphalt Co., 129 App. Div. 443......24, 140, 276, 318, 323 Weitzmann v. Barber Asphalt Co., 190 NX 462 cies wes 23, 140, 372, 416, 458 Weizinger v. Erie R. R. Co., 106 App. Dive Alle cy de eae ia 105, 110, 484, 539 Welch v. Waterbury Co., 136 App. Dive SIG. sawess sacar 71, 120, 156 Welch »v. Waterbury Co., 144 App. Divs 21843 s:waua vos es 121, 157, 498 lx TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Weld +. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 148 App. Div. 588... .273, 307, 437, 529 Welk »v. Jackson Agricultural Iron Works, 98 App. Div. 247...... 215, 503 Wells v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 147 App. Div. 155....... 105, 427 Weller ». Consolidated Gas Co. 198 We des tenes 162, 227, 429, 514 Wendell v. Leo, 195 N. Y.76........ 97 Wendell ». Leo, 115 App. Div. 850 70, 440 Wendling ». International R. R., 139 App.Div. 868.................. 47 Wesel v. Powers Co., 147 App. Div. WGI ies eked sso catia abot Aba 154, 529 Wesener v. Smith, 89 App. Div. 211 145, 418 West v. Woodruff, 112 App. Div. 133 4, 148, 302 West v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 47 MiSs 608 st eaiten Sean Meee eee x we 279 West v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 105 App. Div. 378................ 268, 329 Westervelt ». N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 86 App. Div. 316. ............... 205 Wheeler ». Sundstrom & Stratton Co., 143 App. Div. 499. ...... 148, 191, 343 Wheeler v. Norton, 92 App. Div. White v. Lewiston & Youngstown F. R. Co., 94 App. Div. 4. ..248, 331, 518 White » N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 90 App. Div. 356.................04. 388 White v. State of N. Y., 73 Mise. Whitestown v. State of New York, 148 App. Div. 582.................0.. 290 Whiting ». N. Y..C. & H. R. BR. R., 97 App. Div. 11. ............ 178, 203 Whittacker v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & Suburban R. R., 110 App. Div. (OL spacwaekeerne lames 137, 177, 320 Wieber v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 109 App. Dive Sli. cucu see eds 4, 208, 426 Wilcox v. City of Rochester, 114 App. DINE GS. Baio ge coi sagem seer 70 Wilcox v. City of Rochester, 190 N. Y. 13% ee eee oh cee Wee 305, 392, 432 Wilkes v. Gallagher, 51 Misc. 654... 479 Wilkins v. N. Y. Transportation Co., . 52 Mise. 166........... 8, 419, 420, 421 Wilkins ». Nassau Newspaper Del. Ex- press Co., 98 App. Div. 130. . .223, 278, 338, 401 Williams ». Citizens Steamboat Co., 128 App. Div. 807. .......... 116, 463 Williams ». Citizens Steamboat Co., 122 App. Div. 188. ...... 360, 372, 527 First Nat. Bank of Utica, 118 App. Div. 555. ....214, 413, 504 Williams ». N. Y. City R. R., 49 MSC) 253 » eaussn oy abe Means eee: 235 Williams v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 97 App. Diy. 133. ....173, 255, 301, 480 Willis v. Thompson Starrett Co., 54 Misc. 238. 0.0.00. cece eee 108, 214 Willson ». Faxon, Williams & Faxon, 138 App. Div. 359. Willson v. Faxon, Williams & Faxon, 63 Mise. 561. ......... .. 60, 352, 362 Wilson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 129 App. Div. 125 . . .139, 189, 249, 404, 425, 427, 437, 533 Wilson v. D. L. & W. R. R., 119 App. Divi O15 go gaye eneee Nd, 176, 199, 435 Williams 2. TABLE OF CASES CITED Ixiir [References are to Pages] Wilson v. Rochester & Eastern Rapid R. R. Co., 123 App. Div. 90. . .246, 303, 451 Wilson v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 26... .......... 46, 234 Wilson v. N. Y. Mills, 107 App. Div. 09 iiss a Naucn cede cae BOGE ana ae 1538, 374 Wilson v. United Traction Co., 94 App. Div. 539...............0000- 52 Wimmer »v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 92 App. Div. 258..... 171, 258, 426, 549 Winchell ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 121 App. Div. 52. ....... 172, 202, 450 Winckler v. City of N. Y., 129 App. Dive 45 ears eaaeakas 163, 219, 509 Wingert v. Krakauer, 92 App. Div. DIB ios. eset Siew eee teen at 216 Winter v. City of Niagara Falls, 119 App. Div. 586........ 131, 142, 432, 544 Winters v. Naughton, 91 App. Div. BO sheatn cae canoions 78, 96, 135, 332 Wirth v. General R. R. Signal Co., 136 App. Div. 536. .......... 148, 340 Withers v. Brooklyn R. E. Exchange, 106 App. Div. 255........ 92, 297, 298, 441, 510 Witmer v. B. & N. F. E. C. & P. Co., 112 App. Div. 698 ............ 63, 480 Wittgren v. Wells Brothers Co., 141 App. Div. 6938..............00. 89, 489 Wittmer v. Fairhurst, 134 App. Div. BOD ae aiaraT Aiwa’ 124, 159, 368, 393 Wolfe v. Mosler Safe Co., 139 App. Div. 848 Wolfinger v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 121 App. Div. 140. ...... 147, 158, 494 Wolford ». N. Y. C. & H.R. R. R., 118 App. Div. 553. .......... 167, 468 Wolpers v. N. Y. & Queens El. Light Co., 91 App. Div. 424. ....64, 298, 344 Wolven v. Gabler, 132 App. Div. 45 369, 376, 544 Wood ». Long Island R. R. Co., 137 Apps DIYs. 68 acsaceey wea ween Son 209 Wood »v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R., 183 App. Div. 270 ..... 240, 362, 452, 476 Wood »v. Central New England R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 127.......... 75 Wood ». Burke & Son., 121 App. DEV 5 ADs crate ia acelnie les ted ly lane 102, 341 Wood v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 184 Ni Me QoQ tics scctiua ae teractions 75, 204 Wood v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 93 App. DIV: 53) a .ect4wes ew sans 76, 441 Wood ». Hoffman, 121 App. Div. Beads diatdmmee aes 20, 379 ‘Wood ». N. Y. C. R. R. Co. 109 App. Div. 770.,...........59, 177, 201 Wooding v. Thorn, 148 App. Div. 21 9, 183, 428 Woods v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 128 App. Div. 235........ 170, 260, 323 Woolsey v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 123 App. Div. 631... ..... 176, 247, 468 Wootton v. Flatbush Gas Co., 102 App. DIVA 294 8s ecsat seed! acess agate ave Wren ». Kennedy Valve Mfg. Co., 122 App. Div. 289... ......... 102, 479 Wright v. United Traction Co., 131 App. Div. 356..............4. 333, 335 Wright v. Fleischmann, 99 App. Div. Wrigley v. City of N. Y., 122 App. Dive 402 ii wesag ects aiwane eee Wynkoop v. Ludlow Valve Mfg. Co., 112 App. Div. 729......... 28, 160, 485. lxiv TABLE OF CASES CITED [References are to Pages] Wynkoop v. Ludlow Valve Mfg. Co., 196 N. Y. 324. ....... 124, 159, 352, 425 Wynn »v. Carlin, 1385 App. Div. 795 100, 146, 340, 384, 444, 460 Wynne v. Continental Asphalt Pav- ing Co., 61 Misc. 94... .91, 428, 487, 500 xX Xenodochius v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 129 App. Div. 26... .. 130, 185, 230, 456 York v. N. Y.0. & W. R. R., 108 App. Dive 126) schiseie eaten e 206, 444, 473 Young v. Bradley & Son, 129 App. Div. 678.653 semod aed caatonede 138, 162, 369 Young v. Mason Stable Co., 193 N. Y. 188535 a epi daiscsia aes 4 67, 97, 364, 380, 405 Young v. Hermann, 119 App. Div. BAGS 5 coe nes Dake iclgate tg 231, 280, 395, 545 Young v. Mason Stable Co., 96 App. Divs, BOG cai waeweciarcmcelue se 68, 479, 480 Zajdack v. Lisbon Falls Fibre Co., 127 App. Div. 206............ 156, 424, 463 Zampelli v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 55 IMis¢: 213: 24 eaeave ase dau ees ae 260 Zann v. Long Island R. R., 139 App. i VIO age aera eat 12, 197 Zapfe v. John Mullins & Son, 112 App. Div. 34 (Mem.).............. 131, 182 Zeikus v. Florida East Coast R. R. Co., 144 App. Div. 91..0 2. ........... 389 Zettel v. Taylor, 128 App. Div. 251 90, 299, 335, 398 Zilver v. Graves Co., 106 App. Div. 582 71, 346 Zucker v. Whitridge, 143 App. Div. 191 400, 421, 422, 521 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES FACTS Abutting Owners Leaving boards on sidewalk causing injury to pedestrian strik- ing foot against them. Friedman v. City of N. Y., 63 Misc. 310. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Leaving unsecured or protected, coal hole in sidewalk causing injury to pedestrian. McGinnis v. Hyman, 63 Misc. 316. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Accident Unexplained fall from sleeping car. Losie v. Del. & Hudson Co., 142 App. Div. 214. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. No proof that accident caused heart disease causing death. Ostrander v. Orange Co. Traction Co., 125 App. Div. 603. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Unavoidable accident caused by horseshoe wedged in track of street car. Miller v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Misc. 650. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff. Accident by unexplained loosening of elevator chains. Muhlmeyer v. Koehler & Co., 51 Misc. 651. City Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Accountant Failure of public accountant to check accounts causing damage. Smith v. London Assurance Corporation, 109 App. Div. 882. Interlocutory judgment overruling demurrer, affirmed. 1 2 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Animals, Injuries to Injury to horse passing through gate and on to track. Davison v. D., L. & W. R. R., 184 App. Div. 872. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Horse unhitched runr:ing away because of collision with de- fendant’s team, and injured. Independent Ice Cream Co. v. United Ice Cream Co., 69 Mist. 623. Mu- nicipal Court judgment. : Cow killed on track of street railroad. Craft v. Peekskill Lighting & R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 878. County Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Animal straying on highway and on to railroad tracks from de- fective guards. Bateman v. The Rutland R. R. Co., 126 App. Div. 511. Appeal from order setting aside verdict; affirmance. Cow killed by straying on railroad track at night. Craft v. Peekskill Lighting & R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 549. Verdict $75, reversed. Horse hit by car of defendant causing injuries. Nocera v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 113 App. Div. 419. Reversal of Mu- nicipal Court judgment for plaintiff. Cattle on railroad track struck by train, fences out of repair. Satterly v. Erie R. R. Co., 113 App. Div. 462. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Horse hit by iron railing carried by passing vehicle. Curtiss Blaisdell Co. v. Ross, 50 Misc. 642. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff. Verdict, $190. Reversed. ®, . . Horse killed by electric shock from contact with fallen wire. Jones v. Union R. R. Co., 60 Misc. 651. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. ~ Horse frightened by automobile when passing in highway. Davis v. Maxwell, 108 App. Div. 128. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Horse left unattended running away in collision with car. Brand v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 95 App. Div. 64. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 3 Animals, Injuries to—Continued Horse falling into ditch maintained in village highway. Bradner v. Village of Warwick, 91 App. Div. 408. Verdict, $150, affirmed. Horse killed at crossing by falling on pavement and hit by train. Balch v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 1384 App. Div. 1. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Horse left standing unhitched and unattended in highway in collision with vehicle. Acker, Merrill & Condit v. Stern, 49 Misc. 650. Judgment for defendants, reversed. Horse injured by stepping on ridge of ice in city street and fall- ing, causing injury. Loretz v. City of N. Y., 148 App. Div. 721. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Animals, Injuries by Vicious horse striking plaintiff, breaking skull, etc. Keefe v. Lee, 197 N. Y. 68. Judgment for plaintiff reversed. Injured by being kicked by horse led to water. Raible v. Hygienic Ice & Refrigerator.Co., 134 App. Div. 705. Verdict, $4.000. Reversed. Shying of horse caused by automobile, throwing decedent out. See v. Warmser, 129 App. Div. 596. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Child bit by horse standing near curb. Corcoran v. Kelly, 61 Misc. 323. Municipal Court judgment. Reversed. Plaintiff struck by horse while crossing street. Cherbuliez v. Parsons, 59 Misc. 613. Motion to set aside verdict granted. Kicked by horse being exhibited at auction. Karcher v. Fiss, Doerr & Carroll Horse Co., 127 App. Div. 203. Verdict, $1,200. Affirmed. Injured by animal while walking near cage. Molloy v. Starin, 191 N. Y.21. Reversal. Reversing 119 App. Div. 884. 4 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Animals, Injuries by—Continued Horse frightened by automobile running away and injuring plaintiff. Harrington v. Stillman, 120 App. Div. 659. Order to make pleading more definite and certain, affirmed. Plaintiff injured by bear chained, but with which plaintiff came in contact. Ervin v. Woodruff, 119 App. Div. 603. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Child injured by vicious animals when near cage left open. Molloy v. Starin, 113 App.,Div. 852. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Horse frightened by starting of car and running away, injuring plaintiff. Hoag v. South Dover Marble Co., 50 Misc. 499. Order affirmed setting aside verdict. . Bit by vicious dog. Soronen v. VonPostau, 112 App. Div. 437. Municipal Court judgment, reversed. Horse frightened when compelled to remain in vicinity of train, running away causing injury. West v. Woodruff, 112 App. Div. 133. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Horse frightened by steam roller, running away causing injury. A. Buchanan’s Sons v. Crawford Co., 112 App. Div. 278. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Horse frightened by noise of train, throwing plaintiff from vehicle causing injury. Wieber v. N. Y. C. & He R. R. R., 109 App. Div. 81. Verdict, $1,200. Re- versed. Horse frightened by hole in bridge and backing off causing in- jury. Wallace v. Town of New Albion, 107 App. Div. 172. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Horse running away while being driven through city street in- juring plaintiff. Conway v. Rheims, 107 App. Div. 289. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 5 Animals, Injuries by—Continued Horse shying at pile of stone in highway causing injury. Hanney v. Wren, 105 App. Div. 59. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Horse frightened by automobile overturning wagon and injuring plaintiff. Murphy v. Wait, 102 App. Div. 121. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Horse frightened by fall of stick of wood along highway causing injury. Hoffart v. Town of West Turin, 90 App. Div. 348. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Servant killed by kick of horse belonging to master. McGovern v. Fitzpatrick, 148 App. Div. 34. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. Team running away, frightened by steam from locomotive on city street, causing injury. Sheldon v. N. Y. C & H. R. R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 396. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Area Way Breaking of railing throwing person sitting upon it into the area. Devine v. National Wall Paper Co., 95 App. Div. 194. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Attorney Failure to prosecute an action causing damage. Lamprecht v. Bien, 125 App. Div. 811. New Trial Ordered. Automobile, In Collision with Vehicles Collision with carriage. Millman v. Appleton, 139 App. Div. 738. Reversal of non-suit. Collision with vehicle causing injury. Klein v. Burleson, 188 App. Div. 405. Verdict, $507. In collision with truck causing injury. O’Donahoe v. Duparquet & Co., 67 Misc. 435. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. 6 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—-FACTS Automobile, In Collision with Vehicles—Continued Carriage standing by side of street run into by automobile and occupant thrown out. Ingraham v. Stockamore, 63 Misc. 114. ‘Motion to set aside verdict denied. Automobile left in street with power shut off started by malicious acts of children causing it to run doing injury. Vincent v. Crandall & Godley Co., 131 App. Div. 200. Municipal Court judgment, reversed. Collision of one automobile with another causing injury. Bayles v. Plumb, 141 App. Div. 786. Judgment for plaintiff reversed. . Collision of automobile with truck stopping in street. Lorenz v. Tisdale, 127 App. Div. 433. Reversal. Verdicts $700 (1), $383 (2). County Court. ‘ Collision with phaeton in which plaintiff was riding. Power v. Arnold Engineering Co., 142 App. Div, 401. Verdict, $400. Re- versed. Collision between automobile and horse and wagon on highway causing injury. Mendleson v. Van Rensselaer, 118 App. Div. 516. County Court judgment for defendants, reversed. Collision between bicycle and automobile at intersecting streets. McCarrogher v. Proal, 114 App. Div. 470. Verdict, $1750. Reversed. Collision between automobiles due to careless driving. Hicks v. Serano, 74 Misc. 274. Motion for judgment on pleadings, denied. Bicyclist injured by bging hit by tow line between automobiles. Gerome v. Hawley, 147 App. Div. 475. Verdict, $300. Reversed. Collision between automobile and vehicle causing injury. Mason-Seaman Transportation Co. v. Wineburgh, 72 Misc. 398. Munic- ipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Automobile, In Collision with Pedestrian Injury by being run down by automobile. O’Reilly v. Davis, 136 App. Div. 386. Verdict, $275. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 7 Automobile, In Collision with Pedestrian—Continued Injury by being struck by an automobile when standing near curb. Bradley v. Jaeckel, 65 Misc. 509. Judgment City Court for plaintiff, af- firmed. Running upon person alighting from street car causing injury. Vilicki v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 65 Misc. 43. Municipal Court judg- ment for plaintiff, reversed. Striking passenger alighting from street car. Brewster v. Barker, 129 App. Div. 724. County Court judgment reversed, Municipal Court affirmed. Running over pedestrian, no signal given. Seaman v. Mott, 127 App. Div. 18. Verdict, $4,200. Reversed. Pedestrian knocked down and run over in street. Cunningham v. Castle, 127 App. Div. 580. Verdict $10,000. Reversed. Pedestrian run over while crossing street. Jordan v. American Sight Seeing Coach Co., 129 App. Div. 313. Verdict, $600. Reversed. Automobile in possession of chauffeur on his own business, hitting plaintiff. Douglass v. Hewson, 142 App. Div. 166. Verdict, $1,400. Reversed. Automobile skidding hitting plaintiff on sidewalk. Philpot v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 142 App. Div. 811. Verdict, $17,500. Re- versed. Pedestrian run over by motor van in street in charge of chauffeur, servant of bailor. Bohan v. Metropolitan Express Co., 122 App. Div. 590. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Pedestrian run into by automobile while in street. Freibaum v. Brady, 143 App. Div. 220. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Automobile changing from course in race and striking spectator. Baldwin v. Locomobile Co., 148 App. Div. 599. Verdict, $7,000. Reversed. « 8 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Automobile, In Collision with Pedestrian—Continued Hit by automobile when attempting to cross crowded street. Wilkins v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 52 Misc. 166. Judgment City Court for plaintiff, reversed. Hit by automobile while witnessing speed contest in public highway. Johnson v. City of N. Y., 186 N. Y. 189. Reversal. Reversing 109 App. Div. 821. Hit by automobile while coming from behind vehicle. Peters v. Cuneo, 123 App. Div. 740. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Hit by automobile while crossing city street. Stewart v. Baruch, 103 App. Div. 577. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Taxicab injuring pedestrian on street. McCahill v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 201 N. Y. 221. Affirmance, affirming 135 App. Div. 322. Pedestrian run down by automobile in street and injured while crossing. McCann v. Davison, 145 App. Div. 522. Verdict, $1,580. Reversed. Collision between automobile and horseman in highway. Tompkins v. Barnes, 145 App. Div. 637. County Court judgment for de- fendant, affirmed. Pedestrian hit by automobile. Hyde v. McCreery, 145 App. Div. 729. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Plaintiff run down by automobile at street crossing. Baker v. Close, 204 N. Y. 92. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed, affirming 137 App. Div. 529. Conductor of street car hit by automobile while crossing road to operate signal. Kalb v. Redwood, 147 App. Div. 77. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Pedestrian run over by automobile while crossing street. Gullery v. McGuire, 75 Misc. 125. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 9 Automobile, In Collision with Pedestrian—Continued Pedestrian knocked down on sidewalk by automobile. Wooding v. Thorn, 148 App. Div. 21. Verdict, $10,000. Order denying motion to set aside verdict, affirmed. Pedestrian struck by automobile while crossing street, throwing decedent to the pavement. Dudley v. Raymond, 148 App. Div. 886. Verdict, $1,250. Reversed. Automobile, in Collision with Child Striking child at crossing while going very fast with no signals. Gross v. Foster, 134 App. Div. 248. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Child hit by automobile while rounding corner of public street. Buscher v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 114 App. Div. 85. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Child 8 years old run over by automobile causing death. Buscher v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 106 App. Div. 493. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Child run over by motor truck while playing in street. Marius v. Motor Del. Co., 146 App. Div. 609. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Automobile, Frightening Horses Frightening horse causing horse to run on pile of muck left in highway, throwing party from wagon. Sweet v. Perkins, 196 N. Y. 482. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Horse frightened by negligent driving of automobile. Maher v. Benedict, 123 App. Div. 579. Verdict, $150. Reversed. Horse frightened running away and injuring plaintiff. Harrington v. Stillman, 120 App. Div. 659. Order to make pleading more definite and certain, affirmed. Horse frightened by automobile overturning wagon and injuring plaintiff. Murphy v. Wait, 102 App. Div. 121. Judgment for defendant. Reversed, Automobile causing horse to shy throwing decedent out. See v. Wormser, 129 App. Div. 596. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. 10 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Automobile, Frightening Horses—Continued Frightening horse when passing in highway. Davis v. Maxwell, 108 App. Div. 128. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Automobile, Collision with Train Collision between automobile and train at crossing causing in- jury. Loomis v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 133 App. Div. 247. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Struck by street car while crossing track. ° Mandy ». Schleicher Co., 142 App. Div. 23. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Collision with train at crossing. Read v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 123 App. Div. 228. Verdict, $10,789. Reversed. Collision with railroad train at crossing. Noakes v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 121 App. Div. 716. Verdict, $35,000. Affirmed. Collision between automobile and train at grade crossing. Sherwood v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 120 App. Div. 639. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Collision with train at grade crossing. Ward v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 119 App. Div. 487. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. : Collision with street car causing injury. Kacsmarek ». Crosstown St. R. R., 143 App. Div. 954. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Running parallel to car track struck from behind by defendant’s car. Faley, Jr. v. 42nd St., St. Nicholas Ave. & Manhattanville R. R., 49 Misc. 649. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Collision between electric car and automobile. Engel v. United Traction Co., 203 N. Y. 321. Affirmance of judgment for plaintiff. Reversing, 138 App. Div. 931. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 11 Automobile, Miscellaneous Injured by chauffeur running into a tree. Erjauschek v. Kramer, 141 App. Div. 545. Verdict, $1,200. Reversed. Caught by rope towing automobile. Canfield v. N. Y. T. Co., 128 App. Div. 450. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Going over embankment at end of closed street. Coreman v. City of N. Y., 114 App. Div. 12. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Driving against man hole cover in night causing injury. Gedroice v. City of N. Y., 109 App. Div. 176. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Hit in collision with automobile. McEnroe v. Taylor, 56 Misc. 680. Municipal Court judgment; reversed. Conductor stepping off car hit by automobile passing. Cesar v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 45 Mise. 331.. City Court judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Injury to driver by running into subway and falling into ex- cavation. Morris v. Interurban St. R. R., 100 App. Div. 295. Verdict, $6,000. Re- versed. Thrown from automobile by collision with bundle placed in street by defendant. Jefson v. Crosstown Street R. R., 72 Misc. 103. Motion for new trial, denied. Bicycle in collision with automobile while crossing highway. Simpson v. Whitman, 147 App. Div. 642. Verdict, $2,750. Reversed. Awning Awning support struck by hub of wheel causing it to fall causing injury. Mansfield v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 199. Judgment for defendant, reversed. 12 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Awning—Continued Hit by fall of beam from awning, under which plaintiff was working. Meaney v. Hurwitz, 115 App. Div. 572. Municipal Court judgment, reversed. Banks Bank deposit moneys paid on forged drafts. Kenney v. Harlem Savings Bank, 61 Mise. 144. City Court judgment. Motion to set aside verdict, denied. Baggage Baggage left in car not returned. Croll v. Pullman Co., 61 Misc. 265. Municipal Court judgment, affirmed. Bailment Pedestrian run over by hired motor van in street in charge of servant of bailor. ‘Bohan v. Metropolitan Express Co., 122 App. Div. 590. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Horse stolen when left unattended in highway. Kleiner v. Cohn, 75 Misc. 116. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Bicycles Hit by train while crossing track with bicycle. Zaun v. L. I. R. R., 139,App. Div. 719. Collision of pedestrian with bicycle. Andrews v. City of Elmira, 128 App. Div. 699. Verdict, $1,200. Reversed. Collision with pedestrian on approaching bridge. Schell v. Town of German Flatts, 123 App. Div. 197. Verdict, $3,850. Affirmed. Collision between bicycle and automobile at intersecting streets. McCarrogher v. Proal, 114 App. Div. 470. Verdict, $1,750. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 13 Bicycles—Continued Bicyclist struck by car while crossing track. Brooks v. International R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 555. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Collision between bicycle and car when crossing track. Knapp v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 103 App. Div. 252. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Bicycle wheel caught in railroad track throwing rider. Griffin v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 46 Misc. 328. Complaint dismissed, reversed. Hit by engine while crossing track riding bicycle. Waddell v. N. Y. C. & H. RB. RB. R., 98 App. Div. 343. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Rider riding after dark into man hole in public street. Walsh v. Central N. Y. Tel. Co., 176 N. Y. 163. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 75 App. Div. 1. Bicyclist injured by being hit by tow line between automobiles. Gerome v. Hawley, 147 App. Div. 475. Verdict, $300. Reversed. Collision with automobile while crossing highway. Simpson v. Whitman, 147 App. Div. 642. Verdict, $2,750. Reversed. Blasting, Falls from Fall of rock after blasting causing injury. Scott v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 186 App. Div. 347. Verdict, $800. Reversed. Blast of rock striking plaintiff destroying use of arm, defendant’s company having had charge of blasting work. Burke v. City & County Contract Co., 133 App. Div. 113. Verdict, $9,000. Affirmed. Plaintiff injured by blast while on the highway. Miller v. Twiname, 129 App. Div. 623. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Stone thrown by blast fired by defendant corporation, making excavation. Cobbe v. United Engineering Co., 191. N. Y. 475. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. 14 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Blasting, Falls from—Continued Fall of projecting rock loosened by blast. King v. Ford, 121 App. Div. 404. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. Second explosion of dynamite after first explosion in blasting. Andriuszis v. Phil. & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 148 App. Div. 607. Verdict, $2,200. Reversed. ‘ Premature explosion injuring employee. McBride v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 113 App. Div. 821. Verdict, $3,000. Af- firmed. Injury to apartment house by blasting on adjoining lot. Page v. Dempsey, 184 N. Y. 245. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Injury to plaintiff’s building by concussion by blasting on ad- joining premises. Luria v. Cusick, 47 Misc. 126. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Pedestrian on street hit by stone ejected by blast set off by con- tractor. Turner v. Degnon-McLean Contracting Co., 99 App. Div. 135. Verdict, $500. Affirmed. Injured by fall of rock falling after blast. Tontiorio v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 147 App. Div. 138. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Blast of dynamite breaking pipe causing flooding of plaintiff’s premises. Wheeler v. Norton, 92 App. Div. 368. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Injury to plaintiff’s house by rock blasted on adjoining lot: by contractor. Necker v. Frank, 43 Misc. 159. Complaint dismissed. Premature explosion of blast killing employee. McBride v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 101 App. Div. 448. Judgment for defendant, reversed. : A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 15 Blasting, Falls from—Continued Hit by flying rock from explosion of blast due to failure to make . rules. Dwyer »v. Slattery, 118 App. Div. 345. Order denying motion for bill of particulars. Reversal. Bookkeeper Failure of accountant to check accounts causing damage. Smith v. London Assurance Corporation, 109 App. Div. 882. Demurrer; interlocutory judgment for defendant, affirmed. Boom Breaking and fall of boom striking intestate and causing death. Holm v. Empire Hardware Co., 102 App. Div. 505. Exceptions overruled, complaint dismissed. Breaks Breaking of steel hawser for warping vessel. Duhme v. Hamburg American Packet Co., 184 N. Y. 404. Judgment for defendant. Reversed. Reversing, 137 App. Div. 237. Break and fall of iron band surrounding kiln of cement. Schermerhorn v. Glens Falls Cement Co., 94 App. Div. 600. Reversed. Complaint dismissed. Breaking of defective rope causing death of scooper in grain ‘elevator. Connors v. Great Northern Elevator Co., 90 App. Div. 311. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Breaking of steam pipe caused by excavation. Neale Incorporated v. N. Y. Steam Co., 147 App. Div. 725. Verdict, $4,349. Affirmed. Breaking of cable, failure to show defects in cable. Beauregard v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 136 App. Div. 834. Complaint dis- missed, affirmed. Breaking wrench with which plaintiff was pulling beam to place. Aitken v. Cornell, 180 App. Div. 824. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. 16 A. DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Brakeman Injured by train starting while boarding. Van Hoarenv. L. I. R. R. Co., 136 App. Div. 20. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. On railroad crushed between bumpers. Lane v. N. Y. 0. & W. R. R., 141 App. Div. 145. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Standing on top of car thrown to ground by sudden starting of train by engineer. Breed v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 181 App. Div. 492. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Striking overhead bridge. Harrison v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 195 N. Y. 86. Judgment for plaintiff; 127 App. Div. 804, modified. Hit by a bridge, defective telltales. Harrison v. N. ¥Y. Central.& H. R. R. R.,127 App. Div. 804. Verdict, $6,500. Reversed. . Standing near train, thrown by sudden movement thereof. Paynev. N. Y.5.& W. R. R., 141 App. Div. 833. Reversal of order denying motion to make complaint more definite and certain. Hit by boxes falling from car. Lyon v. Coleman, 123 App. Div. 703. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. Thrown from car by sudden starting of train. Clark v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 115 App. Div. 813. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. Killed while coupling portions of parted train, failure to flag. Keefe v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 109 App. Div. 180. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. While descending from car hit by projecting roof of building. Russell v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 96 App. Div. 151. Verdict, $3,000. Re- versed. Caught between ends of running boards of cars while coupling, and killed. Strauss v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 91 App. Div. 583. Dismissal of com- plaint. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 17 Brakeman—Continued Hit by low bridge, telltales being defective. Quinlan v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 89 App. Div. 266. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Walking in rear of train run down by locomotive running back- ward. Loomis v. Lake Shore & M.S. R. R., 182 N. Y. 380. Judgment for.defend- ant, reversed. Reversing, 84 App. Div. 633. Crushed between cars while coupling cars from failure to obey rules. Freemont v. Boston & Maine R. R.,'111 App. Div. 831. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed Crushed by car running upon him while coupling cars. McGinnis v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 144 App. Div. 835. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall from cars of brakeman operating defective brake. Sutten v. Erie R. R. Co., 145 App. Div. 122. Judgment for deft., new trial ordered. Brakeman killed while alighting from car while in motion. Stenson v. Flick Const. Co., 146 App. Div. 66. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Jumping from train and run over. Reynolds v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 345. Verdict, $8,000; affirmed. Bridges Collapse of temporary foot bridge in city street. Haney v. City of New York, 126 App. Div. 908. Appeal from judgment, reversed. Falling through hole in bridge when plank flew up. Thompson v. Town of Bath, 142 App. Div. 331. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Falling of plank from bridge under construction, hitting employee beneath on way from work. Lowman v. Pa. Steel Co., 142 App. Div. 891. Affirmance. 18 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Bridges—Continued Train hitting blocking, pushing employee from bridge. Stiles ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 142 App. Div. 917. Judgment for de- fendant, affirmed. Horse frightened backing wagon off bridge over embankment approach. : Wallace v. Town of New Albion, 121 App. Div. 66. Verdict, $5,000. Af- firmed. Fall of temporary bridge on removal of same, injuring employee. Connolly v. Hall & Grant Construction Co., 117 App. Div. 387. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall of temporary bridge erected over excavation in side walk. Parks v. City of N. Y., 111 App. Div. 886. Verdict, $25,000. Affirmed. Fall from unguarded approach to highway bridge in night time. Farrell v. Town of North Elba, 112 App. Div. 144. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. : Hole in bridge frightening horse causing it to back from bridge. Wallace v. Town of New Albion, 107 App. Div. 172. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Fall of bridge over excavation in side walk by overcrowding. Coolidge v. City of N. Y., 99 App. Div. 175. Verdict, $22,000, Reversed. Driving off of bridge having no side rail, sustaining injury. Mack v. Town of Shawangunk, 98 App. Div. 577. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Walking off from open draw bridge into the river. Desure v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 94 App. Div. 251. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Driver of vehicle thrown by collision between vehicle and car on narrow bridge. Lockwood v. Troy City R. R. Co., 92 App. Div. 112. Verdict, $800. Reversed. Injured from defective town bridge. Eggleston v. Chautauqua, 90 App. Div. 314. Verdict, $4,500. Affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 19 Bridges—Continued Brakeman hit by low bridge, the telltales being defective. Quinlan v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 89 App. Div. 266. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Horse hit by car while crossing narrow bridge. Adsit v. Catskill Electric R. R. Co., 88 App. Div. 167. Verdict, $150. Affirmed. Hitting head against moving draw bridge. Nicholls v. City of New York, 128 App. Div. 532. Verdict, $750. Reversed. Collapse and fall of bridge on theatrical stage causing injury. Hahn v. Conried Metropolitan Opera House, 126 App. Div. 815. Verdict, $2,705. Reversed. Falling over rail of foot bridge. White v. State of New York, 73 Misc. 525. Dismissal of claim by Court of Claims. Fall of state bridge over canal. O’Bryan v. State of New York, 148 App. Div. 542. Court of Claims judg- ment for defendant, reversed. Buildings, Collapse of Collapse of walls injuring pedestrian on street. Glasgow v. Jordan, 124 App. Div. 488. Verdict, $750. Reversed. Fall by collapsing of building on which plaintiff stood. Ferrick v. Eidlitz, 123 App. Div. 587. Appeal from judgment for defendant, reversed. Fall of building caused by excavation for adjoining building. Milbaur v. Richard, 188 N. Y. 453. Reversing judgment for plaintiff. Fall of partially completed building while being inspected by prospective tenant. Boyd v. U. S. Mortgage & Trust Co., 94 App. Div. 413. Reversed. Interior structure of building collapsing injuring plaintiff’s intestate. Gustafson v. Young, 91 App. Div. 483. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. 20 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Buildings, Collapse of —Continued Building collapsing, killing intestate, employee of sub-contractor. Nelson v. Young, 91 App. Div. 457. Verdict, $6,500. Affirmed. Fall of wall of building on which plaintiff was employed in the erection thereof. Kaplan v. Friedman Construction Co., 148 App. Div. 14. City Court judg- ment for plaintiff; modified and affirmed. Buildings, Accidents in and About Workman falling into pit in building being constructed. Bausert v. Thompson Starrett Co., 126 App. Div. 332. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Employee hit by falling piece of iron in building construction. O’Rourke v. Guy B. Waite Co., 125 App. Div. 825. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of tile through opening in floor of uncompleted building. Finnegan v. Robinson Co., 124 App. Div. 117. Verdict, $9,000. Reversed. Slipping of metal girder, breaking or injuring plaintiff’s leg. Olcott v. Passaic Steel Co., 122 App. Div. 90. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Burns received by employee from fixtures ordered used by janitor of building. Higbie v. Board of Education, 122 App. Div. 483. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall of object from building under construction, no protecting shed. Shields v. Pugh & Co., 122 App. Div. 586. Appeal from judgment for de- fendant, reversed. e Personal injury received in building. Wood v. Hoffman, 121 App. Div. 636. Affirmed, appeal from Order. Fall through hatch way while examining building for repairs. Kenney v. Brooklyn Bridge Stores Co., 121 App. Div. 684. Verdict, $5,000, Affirmed. Fall of brick from building under construction injuring employee of independent contractor. Hashagen v. Schafer, 54 Misc. 236. Municipal Court judgment, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 21 Buildings, Accidents in and About—Continued Obstruction left at entrance of building causing child to fall. Hunton »v. Village of Peekskill, 119 App. Div. 500. Judgment County Court, reversed. Fall of brick in building striking employee. Graham v. Van Hauten, 53 Misc. 643. Municipal Court judgment, affirmed. Hit by object dropped or thrown by defendant’s employees through opening in floor of unfinished building. Halsch v. J. B. & J. M. Cornell, 49 Misc. 525. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall of stone from under side of window sill injuring pedestrian. Papazian v. Baumgartne-, 49 Misc. 244. Municipal Court judgment, re- versed. Caught by iron girder being moved in building operation. Downes v. Elmira Bridge Co., 179 N. Y. 136. Dismissal of complaint affirmed, affirming 82 App. Div. 639. Negligence in repairing building causing injury to plaintiff. Straus v. Buchman, 96 App. Div. 270. Verdict, $2,663. Affirmed. Fall of wall of building injuring trespasser on premises. Haack v. Brooklyn Labor Lyceum Association, 98 App. Div. 491. Dis- missal of complaint, reversed. Fall of chimney on building caused by connecting wire being struck by boom of derrick. Leeds v. N. Y. Telephone Co., 178 N. Y. 118. Supreme Court judgment for plaintiff reversed. Fall of board insecurely nailed to window for raising merchandise causing injury. Lynch v. Bush Co., Limited, 89 App. Div. 286. Judgment for defendant, dismissal of complaint affirmed. Fall of temporary arch used in building construction causing in- jury. Haughey v. Thatcher, 89 App. Div. 375. Motion for new trial by plaintiff denied. Fall of brick chimney injuring plaintiff. Travers v. Murray, 87 App. Div. 552. Verdict, $1,800. Affirmed. 22 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Buildings, Accidents in and About—Continued Fall of brick from building under construction injuring plaintiff. Koch v. Zimmerman, 85 App. Div. 370. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall of brick from wall in course of building construction in- juring plaintiff. Norman v. Dowd, 86 App. Div. 248. Municipal Court judgment setting aside verdict. Fall from tipping of plank in runway of building under con- struction. Eldridge v. Terry & Tench Co., 145 App. Div. 560. Verdict, $12,000. Re- versed. Fall of plank in building under construction, shoring removed. Chinn v. Ferro Construction Co., 148 App. Div. 368. Verdict, $12,000. Affirmed. Fall from roof of building, carried down by strip of paper on which plaintiff was sitting. Davis v. Gas Engine & Power Co., 148 App. Div. 791. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Tripper car used with conveyor belt for building materials, leaving track, causing servant to fall. Giovagnioli v. Fort Orange Construction Co., 148 App. Div. 489. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Fall from step ladder and through opening in floor of building under construction. Pulis v. Stewart, 75 Misc. 268. Verdict, $15,000. Motion granted setting aside verdict. « Fall through opening in floor. Where opening had been made during repairs to building. Lauder v. Jennings, 148 App. Div. 848. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Buildings, Injuries to Set on fire by burning of automobile. Davis v. Bouton Motor Co., 126 App. Div. 340. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 23 Buildings, Injuries to—Continued House made uninhabitable by building operations on adjoining premises. McFadden v. Thompson Starrett Co., 116 App. Div. 285. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Injury to from vibration due to blasting. Viel v. Mack Paving & Construction Co., 144 App. Div. 694. Verdict, $284. Reversed. Brokers Failure to enforce bonds until barred by Statute of Limitations. Moore v. Coaler, 114 App. Div. 301. Verdict, $4,760.29. Reversed. Burns Received by employee through use of fixtures ordered by janitor. Higbie v. Board of Education, 122 App. Div. 483. J udgment for defendant. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Cable Hit by barrel carried on cable over pontoon on which plaintiff stood. Weitzmann v. Barber Asphalt Co., 190 N. Y. 452. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Cars Defective, break causing injury while coupling cars. Stevenson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 187 App. Div. 742. Verdict, $15,000. Reversed. Failure to couple locomotives together in proper manner caus- ing injury. Dalzell v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 186 App. Div. 329. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Fall of car window on hand of passenger causing injury. Strembel v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 110 App. Div. 238. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. 24 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Cars—Continued Plaintiff slipping through trap doors in bottom of cars while unloading coal, causing injury. Miller 2. Solvay Process Co., 108 App. Div. 1385. Verdict, $550. Reversed. Railroad employee repairing car injured by sudden starting of car. ; Quinn v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 91 App. Div. 489. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed. Carrier Damage to goods in transit. Carleton v. Union Transfer & Storage Co., 1387 App. Div. 225. Judgment for plaintiff. Goods damaged by fire in railroad car in transit. Burke v. Erie R. R., 134 App. Div. 413. Verdict for plaintiff directed, reversed. Delivery of trunk or baggage to wrong person. Cohen v. Koster, 133 App. Div. 570. Submission of Controversy; judgment for defendant. Loss to passenger by baggage being robbed by employee. Hasbrouck v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 64 Misc. 478. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Gate chain on ferry boat causing fall of passenger. Grabler v. N. Y. & East R. Ferry Co., 64 Misc. 58. Appeal from Municipal Court. Hit by barrel passing down cable way. Weitzmann v. Barber Asphalt Co., 129 App. Div. 443. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. Passenger injured by sudden closing of door by starting of train. Goold ». N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 59 Mise. 36. Motion setting aside ver- dict granted. Damages from freezing of products in transportation. Richardson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 122 App. Div. 120. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 25 Carrier—Continued Horse injured on shipment on railroad. Ames v. Fargo, 114 App. Div. 666. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. De- nial of new trial. Child injured by vicious animals while in custody of carrier in transportation. Malloy v. Starin; 113 App. Div. 852. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Attendant accompanying freight in train, killed by accident. Hodge v. Rutland R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 142. Judgment and Order reversed. New trial granted. Loss of baggage left on steamship. Hart v. North German Lloyd S. S. Co., 108 App. Div. 279. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, affirmed. Sustaining loss by non-delivery of a trunk. Canonico v. Cunard Steamship Co., 49 Misc. 92. Order for bill of particulars affirmed. Loss of passenger’s travelling bag at night in sleeping car. Arthur v. Pullman Co., 44 Mise. 229. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff affirmed. Damage from leakage of goods for failure to transfer when leak- age discovered. Bradley v. Lake Shore & Michigan So. R. R., 145 App. Div. 312. Verdict, $3,755.18. Reversed. Passenger sustaining loss by non-delivery of trunk in custody of defendant. Canonico v. Cunard Steamship Co., 49 Misc. 92. City Court order denying motion for bill of particulars, affirmed. Injury by car catching fire through defective electrical equip- ment. Brook v. Brooklyn Union Elevated R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 668. Verdict, $1,250. Affirmed. Caught Caught by key in revolving shaft. Clark v. International Paper Co., 139 App. Div. 375. Non-suit, reversed. 26 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Caught—Continued Catching hand in cable by being jarred from platform by machin- ery. O’Hare v. O’Rourk Engineering Co., 135 App. Div. 348. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Hand caught in rollers and drum in paper mill. Evans v. Eastman Kodak Co., 129 App. Div. 768. Verdict, $7,974. Re- versed. Caught by rope towing automobile. Canfield v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 128 App. Div. 450. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Caught by a rope on reversal of winch. Hanson v. Hogan, 61 Misc. 95. Appeal from Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Hand caught in rollers of machine. Burke v. International Paper Co., 128 App. Div. 680. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmed. Hand crushed between rollers while engaged in tending machine. Makin v. Pettebone Cataract Paper Co., 111 App. Div. 726. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed. Slipping near machine and arm caught in machine. Martin v. Walker & Williams Mfg. Co., 128 App. Div. 733. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Caught by getting hand in putty machine, defective ratchet. Meigel v. Crandall Oil & Putty Mfg. Co., 141 App. Div. 828. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. e Hand caught by circular saw not properly guarded. Proctor v. Rockville Center Milling Cons. Co., 141 App. Div. 900. Ver- dict, $2,750. Affirmed. Foot caught and crushed between platform of cars. Coady v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 128 App. Div. 856. Verdict, $150. Re- versed. Hand caught in machine, guards becoming detached. Mandy ». Schleicher Co., 142 App. Div. 23. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 27 Caught—Continued Plaintiff thrown to ground by rope caught by passing train. Campbell v. L. I. R. R., 127 App. Div. 258. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Hand of girl under 14 caught in machine causing injury. Danaher v. American Mfg. Co., 126 App. Div. 385. Municipal Court judg- ment for plaintiff, affirmed. Hand caught in power stamping press and injured. Steinberg v. Bender & Sons, 125 App. Div. 564. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Caught in machinery cog wheels causing injury. Lester v. Crabtree, 125 App. Div. 617. Judgment, reversed. Hand caught in rollers of machine, guards being unfastened. Mansell v. Conrad, 125 App. Div. 634. Verdict, $8,000, reduced to $3,500. Affirmed. Hand caught in punching press through negligence of fellow servant. Ladiem v. Sherwood Metal Working Co., 125 App. Div. 65. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Hand caught between rollers of paper machine causing injury. Scott v. International Paper Co., 125 App. Div. 318. Verdict, $9,375. Re- versed. Hair catching in revolving shaft of machine. Kirwan v. American Lithographic Co., 124 App. Div. 180. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Hair caught in revolving shaft of machine. Cinetti v. American Hatters & Furriers Corporation, 124 App. Div. 345. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Plaintiff’s hand caught by sudden starting of machinery. Bovi v. Hess, 123 App. Div. 389. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. While avoiding falling brick arm caught in unguarded cogs. Perrotta v. Richmond Brick Co., 123 App. Div. 626. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. Fingers caught by elevator starting while cleaning sheaves. Falk v. Havemeyer, 123 App. Div. 657. Reversal of judgment for plaintiff. 28 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Caught—Continued Catching foot in fly wheel on fall from platform. King v. Reid, 124 App. Div. 121. Verdict, $1,750. Reversed. Caught while putting belt on pulley by sudden starting of pulley. Gallagher v. Newman, 190 N. Y. 444. ene for plaintiff reversed, reversing, 119 App. Div. 865. Finger caught in sausage machine while operating it. Fortune v. Hall, 122 App. Div. 250. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Falling and catching hair in machine. Schalk v. Commercial Twine Co., 122 App. Div. 521. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Caught in cog wheels of machine by fall on slippery floor. Loughran v. Mott Iron Works, 122 App. Div. 595. Verdict, $7,000. Re- versed. Arm caught between cars necessitating amputation. Onesti v. Central N. E. R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 554. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Hand caught in roller of machine, no guard on machine. Severson v. Hill, Warner-Fitch Co., 116 App. Div. 108. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Hand caught while cutting rubber obstructing rollers of machine. Roche v. India Rubber, etc., Co., 115 App. Div. 582. Verdict, $250. Re- versed. Hand caught on working table of machine and injured by saw. Tannhauser v. Uptegrove Brothers, 114 App. Div. 764. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Hand involuntarily placed on track of travelling crane, caught and injured. Wynkoop v. Ludlow Valve Mfg. Co., 112 a Div. 729. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Hand caught in machine while waxing rollers. Lynch »v. Shanley Co., 122 App. Div. 305. Verdict, $6,500. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 29 Caught—Continued Caught by unguarded set screw in revolving shaft when stepping over same. Walker v. Newton Falls Paper Co., 111 App. Div. 19. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Fingers caught in unguarded cogs. Stevens v. Gair, 109 App. Div. 621. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Arm caught around revolving:shaft and crushed. Thayer v. Utica Knitting Co., 183 N. Y. 18. Judgment for plaintiff re- versed. Hand caught in unguarded cogs of paper machine. McManus »v. St. Regis Paper Co., 107 App. Div. 29. Verdict; $5,400. Re- versed. Hand caught in machine and drawn between rollers. Keating v. Coon, 102 App. Div. 112. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Thumb caught in electrical meat cutting machine and fingers cut off, failure to instruct. Vaegele v. Bardusch, 98 App. Div. 127. Verdict, $1,250. Reversed. Caught by iron girder being moved in building operation. Downes v. Elmira Bridge Co., 179 N. Y. 136. Affirmed, dismissal of com- plaint. Hand caught between rollers in knitting mill and injured. Sitts v. Waiontha Knitting Co., 94 App. Div. 38. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fingers caught by fall of die in press. Jones v. Kroder & Reubel Co., 95 App. Div. 140. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Head caught by descending pan in conveyer in tool factory. McKinley v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 91 App. Div. 153. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Clothing caught in revolving shaft causing injury. Huff v. American Fire Engine Co., 88 App. Div. 324. New trial motion for. 30 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Caught—Continued Finger caught between rollers of machine, inability to stop machinery. Collins v. Waterbury Co., 144 App. Div. 670. Verdict, $5,000. Modified and affirmed. Caught by unguarded set screws on shaft and thrown to ground. Larsen v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 146 App. Div. 238. Verdict, $17,500. Affirmed. Hand caught by starting of machine at which plaintiff was work- ing. Colelli v. Turner, 147 App. Div. 29. Verdict, $5,500. Reversed. Hand caught between teeth of rollers and cut off. Dyer v. Radermacher, 147 App. Div. 48. Verdict, $6,320. Reversed. Cellarway Falling into opening of unguarded cellarway connecting with highway. Opper v. Hellinger, 116 App. Div. 261. Verdict, $8,300. Reversed. Charitable Institution Fall of child from window during absence of attendant. Cunningham v. The Sheltering Arms, 135 App. Div. 178. Verdict, $2,000. Order setting aside verdict, affirmed. Charity Plaintiff hit by barrel when accompanying boy sent to receive it as a gift of charity for fuel. Wallace v. Casey Co., 132 App. Div. 35. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Children Injured by Vehicles Child struck by wagon while in public street. Bellu v. Levy, 68 Misc. 182. Verdict City Court. $750. Motion for new trial. Child 2 years old crossing street struck by coal truck and run over. Manion v. Richmond Ice Co., 133 App. Div. 254. Verdict, $1,250. Re- versed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 31 Children Injured by Vehicles—Continued Child run over by truck in street. Hallett v. Liebman’s Sons Brewing Co., 129 App. Div. 617. Appeal from judgment dismissing complaint, reversed. Injured while crossing street and run over by vehicle. Corsale v. Facini e¢ al., 60 Misc. 100. Judgment Municipal Court for defendants, reversed. Child’s leg crushed by vehicle while sitting on curb. Barretto v. Moquin, Offerman Wells Coal Co., 142 App. Div. 504. Verdict, $2,500. Child knocked down by horse and head crushed while playing in street. Gelderman v. Curtis, 120 App. Div. 400. Verdict, $1,400. Reversed. Child run over by vehicle while crossing street. Barth v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 52 Misc. 487. Appeal from Muni- cipal Court, reversed. . Child crossing city street hit by vehicle coming around corner. _ Gerber v. Boorstein, 113 App. Div. 808. Dismissal of complaint after trial. Reversed. Child in street run over by express wagon. Harvey v. Fargo, 99 App. Div. 599. Affirmed. ‘Child 2 years 9 months old run over by defendant’s wagon while playing in street. Burke v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 98 App. Div. 219. Verdict, $10,500. Affirmed. Child run over by wagon while in the street. Carr v. Merchants’ Union Ice Co., 91 App. Div. 162. Verdict, $900. Re- versed. Child struck and run over by express wagon while crossing street in night. Pastore v. Livingston, 72 Misc. 555. Motion to set aside verdict granted. Child run over by wagon while standing in highway. McRorie v. Monroe, 203 N. Y. 426. Affirming judgment for plaintiff on verdict. 32 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Children Injured by Vehicles—Continued Child run over by wheel of truck owned by defendant. Bernstein v. Empire Bridge Co., 146 App. Div. 529. Verdict, $4,750. Af- firmed. , Child run over by truck on street. Schechter v. Berger Mfg. Co., 147 App. Div. 733, reversal of order granting new trial. Child run over by ash cart owned by city. Dooling v. City of N. Y., 148 App. Div. 713. Judgment for defendant; affirmed. Children Injured by Automobile Child struck by automobile going fast with no signals approaching a crossing. Gross v. Foster, 134 App. Div. 243. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Child 8 ydars old run over by automobile causing death. Buscher v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 106 App. Div. 493. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Child run over by motor vehicle while playing in street. Marius v. Motor Delivery Co., 146 App. Div. 608. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Children Injured by Street Car Child struck by trolley car while crossing street. McFarland v. Elmira Water, Light & R. R. Co., 186 App. Div. 194. Non- suit. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Child hit by street car while playing in the street. Smith v. Rochester R. R. Co., 133 App. Div. 847. Verdict, $700. Reversed. Child attempting to cross street track of trolley car and run over. Quinlan v. Richmond Light & R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 402. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Child run over by street car while crossing street. Grealish v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & Suburban R. R. Co., 180 App. Div. 238. Appeal from order setting aside verdict of $4,000. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 33 Children Injured by Street Car—Continued Child hit by car while crossing city street. Gallagher v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 124 App. Div. 868. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Order setting aside verdict, reversed. Child hit by horse of street car and by car while playing in street. Kostenbaum v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 120 App. Div. 160. Appeal from order setting aside verdict. Child struck by car while playing in street. Joost v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 118 App. Div. 499. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed. Infant struck by street car while crossing track. Lipsis v. Metropolitan St: R. R., 112 App. Div. 27. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Child 5 years old run over by car while running in front of car. Wahnick v. Dry Dock East Broadway & Battery R. R., 112 App. Div. 4. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Child of 6 hit by car while crossing track. Kaplan v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 98 App. Div. 133. Judgment for defend- ant. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Child run over on car track by car while crossing street. McDonald v. Metropolitan St. R. R.,.93 App. Div. 238. Verdict, $3,800. Reversed. Child run down by car having no fender, motorman not looking. Fritsch v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 93 App. Div. 554. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Child struck and killed by car while crossing track. Atchason v. United Traction Co., 90 App. Div. 571. Verdict, $1,200. Re- versed. Child struck by car while crossing street. Lafferty v. 3rd Ave. R. R. Co., 85 App. Div. 592. Verdict, $12,000. Af- firmed. Child struck by trolley car while crossing track. Tiaden v. Brooklyn Heights R.,R., 145 App. Div. 581. Verdict, $250. Reversed. 34 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Children Injured by Street Car—Continued Child struck by fender of car in crossing street. Nitchman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 146 App. Div. 558. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Child in mother’s arms struck by car while crossing track. Epstine v. Brooklyn & Queens Co. & 8. R. R., 147 App. Div. 58. Judgment for defendant reversed. : Child killed at street railroad crossing, struck by trolley car. Orafina v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 417. Verdict, $900. Re- versed. Child struck by trolley car and run over while crossing track. Albrecht v. Rochester 8S. & E. R. R. Co., 205 N. Y. 230. Reversing Appellate Division judgment for plaintiff, 142 App. Div. 910. Children Injured by Steam Cars Child crossing railroad track and run over by sudden backing of trains of cars. Batchelor v. Degnon R. & T. Imp. Co., 131 App. Div. 1386. Dismissal of com- plaint reversed. Child injured on railroad while crossing street. Feinstein v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 130 App. Div. 258. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Child killed at crossing while crossing track, by train backing up. Batchelor v. Degnon Realty Terminal Imp. Co., 141 App. Div. 879. Ver- dict, $4,250. Reversed. Child run over while crossing track of railroad. Serano v. N. Y. C. & HeR. R. R., 188 N. Y. 156. Appeal from order App. Div., reversed. Child struck at highway crossing, gates not lowered and no flag- man. Recktenwald v. Erie R. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 490. Verdict, $3,000. Re- versed. Child struck by train while being carried across track. Paige v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 111 App. Div. 828. Verdict, $1,200. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 35 Children Injured by Steam Cars—Continued Child struck by locomotive while crossing tracks by path or travelled way. LeDuc v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 92 App. Div. 107. Verdict, $3,000. Re- versed. Child struck by train while crossing track near intersection of streets. Strickland v. N. Y. Central R. R.,.88 App. Div. 367. Verdict, $8,500. Reversed. Child run over by defendant’s train. Burke v. Brooklyn Wharf & W. Co., 86 App. Div. 296. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Children, Miscellaneous Child leaning against grating, fall of grating into cellar and in- jury from. Kelly v. Hudson Companies, 65 Misc. 574. City Court judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Injury to child by fall of grating over coal hole. Strobel v. Liebman, 197 N. Y. 348. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed, re- versing 133 App. Div. 910. Fall of child from window during temporary absence of at- tendant. Cunningham v. Sheltering Arms, 135 App. Div. 178. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. A minor, boy under 16, killed while running elevator. Kircher v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 184 App. Div. 144. Verdict, $2,250. Af- firmed. Child playing in vacant lot injured by fall of pile of lumber sustaining damages. Middleton v. Reutler, 141 App. Div. 517. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Child bitten by horse standing near curb. Corcoran v. Kelly, 61 Misc. 323. Reversal. Child burned by fire in vacant lot. Specht v. Waterbury Co., 70 Misc. 404. Motion for non-suit denied. 36 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS ~* Children, Miscellaneous—Continued Child falling into hole in side’ walk in front of defendant’s prem- ises. Furst v. Zucker, 125 App. Div. 591. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Child set to work on dangerous machine and sustaining injuries thereby. Schmidt v. Bruen, 56 Misc. 130. Motion for new trial. Child falling into pipe left by city at entrance to Church. Hunton v. Village of Peekskill, 119 App. Div. 500. Judgment County Court, reversed. Child injured while working around dangerous machine in vio- lation of labor law. Lee v. Sterling Silk Mfg. Co., 115 App. Div. 589. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Child under 16 employed contrary to labor law, injured. Herbst v. Kellogg Mfg. Co., 112 App. Div. 356. Verdict, $1,700. Reversed. Child injured by fall of stone pile on which he was playing. Kane v. Erie R. R. Co., 110 App. Div. 7. Verdict, $100. Reversed. Fall of lumber injuring child. Powers v. Oswego Bridge Co., 97 App. Div. 477. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Child’s hand cut off at wrist by knives of cutting machine, cut- ting pads being defective and out of repair. Ceigler v. Hopper-Morgan Co., 90 App. Div. 379. Verdict, $1,068. Re- versed. Child falling over banjster of stairway in tenement house. Thompson v. Leon, 144 App. Div. 919. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Child falling into excavation on defendant’s property, unguarded. Goldberg v. Graham, 146 App. Div. 501. Judgment for defendant, dis- missal of complaint. Child injured by running into barbed wire fence surrounding school grounds. Barr v. Green, 148 App. Div. 897. Judgment for defendant on dismissal of complaint affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 37 Child Injured by Automobile Hit by automobile while rounding corner of public street. Buscher v. N. Y. Transporting Co., 114 App. Div. 85. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Child Injured by Street Car Hit by car and run over while crossing track. Peterson v. Interurban St. R. R., 118 App. Div. 210. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Struck by street car while crossing street. Hirtenstein v. Interurban St. R. R., 115 App. Div. 275. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Hit by electric car while carried across track by sudden increase in speed of car. Franco v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 108 App. Div. 14. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. ° Hit by street car without signal or warning or lessening of speed. Dempsey v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 98 App. Div. 182. Non-suit improper, reversed. Hit by conductor of car and knocked under car causing injury. Hewson v. Interurban St. R. R., 95 App. Div. 112. Verdict, $7,000. Affirm- ance. Child Injured by Vehicle Child knocked down by careless hack driver, while playing near the step of coach. Jones v. Weigand, 134 App. Div. 644. Dismissal of ccmplaint, reversed. Run over by truck while playing in street. Pittel v. Burkhard, 121 App. Div. 571. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. Run over and killed in public street by vehicle. Weintraub v. Guilfoyle, 89 App. Div. 328. Verdict for defendant, reversed. Coal Pit Fall of crust of coal frozen, injuring plaintiff. Sienbida v. Tonawanda Board & Paper Co., 121 App. Div. 70. Verdict, $800. Affirmed. é 38 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Coal Chute Employee hit by coal flowing down chute, having been dislodged. Fleming v. Tuttle, 98 App. Div. 222. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Co-Employees Damages sustained from unskilled employee. . Ellsworth v. Franklin County Agricultural Society, 99 App. Div. 119. In- terlocutory judgment for plaintiff. Demurrer by defendant overruled, judg- ment affirmed. Collision Between Vehicles Horse thrown to ground by collision between cab and wagon. McCarthy v. Brooklyn Taxi Co., 140 App. Div. 177. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff reversed. Collision of team in street with horse standing unhitched, caus- “ing run away and injuries. Independent Ice Cream Co. v. United Ice Cream Co., 69 Misc. 623. Munic- ipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Collision of truck with buggy standing by highway injuring per- son in buggy. Altenkirch v. National Biscuit Co., 127 App. Div. 307. Verdict, $6,000. Affirmed. Collision between vehicles causing injury to plaintiff. Cornell v. Harvey, 125 App. Div. 189. Verdict, $1,000. Affirmed. Collision between vehicle and express wagon on wrong side of street. Dickinson v. Platt, 116 App. Div. 651. Verdict, $7,000. Reversed. Ambulance colliding with wagon in which plaintiff was sitting, overturning the same and causing injury. Noble v. Hahnemann Hospital, 112 App. Div. 663. Motion for new trial denied. Collision between vehicles, horse left standing unhitched and un- attended in highway. Acker, Merrall & Condit v. Stern, 49 Mise. 650. Municipal Court judgment for defendant. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 39 Collision Between Vehicles—Continued Collision between bicycle and vehicle on public highway. Wright v. Fleischmann, 99 App. Div. 547. Verdict, $5,000. Modified and affirmed. Collision between two wagons driving on public highway. Johnson v. Duncan, 98 App. Div. 322. Municipal Court judgment for defendants, reversed. Collision at street crossing between ambulance and bicycle rider. Kellogg v. Church Charity Foundation, etc., Co., 185 App, Div. 839. Re- versal. Collision between automobiles from careless driving. Hicks v. Serano, 74 Misc. 274. Motion for judgment on pleadings denied. Collision Between Trains and Vehicles Collision at railroad farm crossing, injury from. Potter v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 134 App. Div. 827. Appeal from judgment dismissing complaint, reversed. Collision at railroad crossing, being struck by passing train in daylight while crossing track in cutter. Phelps v. Erie R. R., 134 App. Div. 729. Appeal from order setting aside verdict, reversed. Railroad train and vehicle at grade crossing of railroad, resulting in injury. Parsons v. Syracuse, Bing. & N. Y. R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 461. Ver- dict, $8,500. Reversed. Plaintiff driving covered milk wagon over railroad track struck by train, no signal given. Eager v. Brooklyn Union Elevated R. R., 131 App. Div. 170. Appeal from judgment Municipal Court. Collision of train with truck unloading near track. Obenland v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 127 App. Div. 418. Dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, reversed. 40 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Collision Between Trains and Vehicles—Continued Collision on railroad crossing, train with vehicle killing passenger in vehicle. Eayes v. Lehigh & Hudson R. R. R., 122 App. Div. 905. Judgment for plaintiff, $21,468.39. Affirmed. Collision between truck and railroad car causing injury. Shatzman v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 55 Mise. 300. Municipal Court judg- ment, reversed. Between vehicle and train killing intestate riding on invitation of driver. Murphy v. Erie R. R. Co., 202 N. Y. 242. Appeal from judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Railroad train at high speed colliding with van crossing track. Nelson v. L. I. R. R., 109 App. Div. 626. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Between railroad train and stage injuring plaintiff. Lewis v. Erie R. R., 105 App. Div. 292. Order setting aside non-suit. Collision at railroad crossing between vehicle and train. Morse ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 102 App. Div. 495. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Collision between train and carriage crossing track, no warning being given of approach of train. Heater v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 90 App. Div. 495. Verdict, $1,500. Re- versed. Vehicle struck by train at railroad crossing killing teamster. McAuliff v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 85 App. Div. 187. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. ® Collision Between Automobile and Vehicle Between automobile and carriage. Millman v. Appleton, 139 App. Div. 738. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Automobile with truck. O’Donahue v. Duparquete et al., 67 Misc. 435. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 41 Collision Between Automobile and Vehicle—Continued Automobile with phaeton. Power v. Arnold Engineering Co., 142 App. Div. 401. Verdict, $400. Re- versed. Vehicle with telephone pole while turning to avoid automobile. Scofield v. Town of Peughkeepsie, 122 App. Div. 868. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Between automobile and horse and wagon on highway causing injury. Mendelson v. Van Rensselaer, 118 App. Div. 516. Reversal. Collision between automobile and vehicle on track. Shepard v. Wood, 116 App. Div. 861. Affirmance. Appeal by plaintiff from judgment Albany County Court. Between bicycle and automobile at intersecting streets. McCarrogher v. Proal, 114 App. Div. 470. Verdict, $1,750. Reversed. Collision between truck and automobile on highway causing injury. Bischoff v. Automobile Touring Co., 97 App. Div. 17. Judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Collision, Automobile with Trains 1 Motor truck disabled on railroad crossing, struck at night by defendant’s train. Green v. L. I. R. R., 181 App. Div. 277. Verdict, $2,800. Reversed. Automobile hit by train while crossing track. Spencer v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 123 App. Div. 789. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Automobile colliding with train at railroad crossing. Read v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 123 App. Div. 228. Verdict, $101,789.10. Reversed. Automobile with train at railroad crossing: Noakes v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 121 App. Div. 716. Verdict, $35,000. Affirmed. Judgment for defendant reversed. 42 A DIGEST OF NIGLIGHNCE CASES FACTS Collision, Automobile with Trains— Continued Automobile and train at grade crossing. Sherwood v. N. Y. ©. & IL R. R. R., 120 App. Div. 640. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Automobile with train at grade crossing. Ward »v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 119 App. Div. 487. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. Automobile with train while passing over crossing. Tucker ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 108 App. Div. 142. Verdict, $15,000. Reversed. Collision ‘Between Auto and Street Car Collision of automobile and electric car at crossing, failure to look. Ward v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 115 App. Div. 104. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Collision between automobile and street car causing injury. Kacsmarck v. Crosstown St. R. 1., 143 App. Div. 954. Judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Automobile running parallel to track struck by street car from behind. Foley, Jr. v. 42nd St. N. Ave. & M. KR. R., 49 Mise. 649. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Collision between trolley car and automobile at street crossing. Curtis v. Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 147 App. Div. 349. Verdict, $18,500. Reversed. Collision, Vessels e Vessel moved from dock. Lackawanna Steel Co. v, Pioneer 8, 8. Co., 69 Mise. 104. Motion for new trial by plaintiff denied. Collision between tug boat and pile driver. Bolt v. DuBois Sons Co., 97 App, Div. 392. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Collision of drifting scow with dock and boats of plaintiff. Dooley v, Healey, 95 App. Div. 271. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 43 Collision, Vessels—Continued Collision between vessels at sea resulting in drowning. Grube v. Hamburg-American Steamship Co., 176 N. Y. 383. Pudement for plaintiff, reversed; reversing 83 App. Div. 636. Collision Between Steam Trains Collision by running into disabled train. Hammond ». D. L. & W. R. R., 140 App. Div. 810. Verdict, $16,000. Order setting aside verdict affirmed. Collision of railroad cars by loosening brake. Isola v. D. L. & W. R. R., 134 App. Div. 313. Verdict, $6,000. ‘Afiemed. Collision in railroad yard causing injury to fireman while on locomotive. Biehl v. Erie R. R., 132 App. Div. 364. Verdict, $15,000. Reversed. Collision between trains of different roads. Gorman v. N. Y. Chicago & St. L. R. R., 194 N. Y. 488. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed; reversing 122 App. Div. 996. Collision of train with engine by misplaced switch. Van Inwegen v. Erie R. R., 126 App. Div. 297. Verdict, $16,500. Affirmed. Head on collision on railroad killing fireman because of failure to obey orders. Butler v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh R. R., 142 App. Div. 282. Verdict $7,500. Affirmed. Collision on track in tunnel causing injury. Draper v. Interborough Rapid Transit.Co., 124 App. Div. 351. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Collision between trains on railroad from disobedience of orders. Hayes v. N. Y.,N.H. & H.R. R. R., 121 App. Div. 198. Motion for new trial on case and exception. Head on collision between two trains, due to mistake in orders. McCarthy v. Pa. R. R. Co., 189 N. Y. 170. Appeal from judgment, appel- late division reversed. Injured while attempting to board train by collision on bridge. Rosenthal v. N. Y. & Susquehanna & W. R. R., 112 App. Div. 431. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. 44 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Collision Between Steam Trains—Continued Collision of railroad train with train on which plaintiff’s intestate was riding. Newton v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 106 App. Div. 415. Verdict, $12,500, Reversed. Collision on railroad resulting from overworked crew in violation of Labor Law. Pelin v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 102 App. Div. 71. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Collision between trains crushing intestate between cars. Filbert v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 95 App. Div. 199. Non-suit, affirmed. Collision between cars causing freight to fall on truckman load- ing truck. Fisher v. N. Y. Dock Co., 91 App. Div. 526. Motion for new trial on ex- ceptions; exceptions sustained; new trial granted. Collision between trains from failure to observe signals, killing engineer. Shannon v. N, Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 88 App. Div. 349. Affirmed, non-suit. by court after trial. Collision between trains killing trainman in caboose. Fieldv. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 86 App. Div. 148. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Collision of trains, killing conductor due to negligence of train dispatcher. Storrs v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 403. Verdict, $9,000; reversed unless reduced to $5,000. ° Collision Between Street Car and Steam Car at Crossing Collision between street car and railroad train at crossing and injury to passenger. Moore v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R., 133 App. Div. 396. Appeal from judgment Municipal Court. Conductor killed by collision’ at crossing of electric and steam railroads. Cox v. D. & H. Co., 128 App. Div. 363. Verdict, $14,560. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 45 Collision Between Pedestrian and Vehicle Collision of pedestrian with bicycle. Andrews v. City of Elmira, 128 App. Div. 699. Verdict, $1,200. Reversed. Boy run down in street by truck. Doyle v. Foster, 128 App. Div. 279. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Bicycle colliding with pedestrian on approaching bridge. Schell ». Town of German Flatts, 123 App. Div. 197. Verdict, $3,850. Affirmed. Employee struck by car while crossing track. Pouch v. Staten Island Midland R. R. Co., 142 App. Div. 16. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Collision, Miscellaneous Hand injured in collision between engine and obstruction along track. . O’Keefe v. Degnon Realty & Terminal Improvement Co., 141 App. Div. 701. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Collision with projecting gas jet in dark store room which plaintiff entered. . MacRoe v. Chelsea Fibre Mills, 145 App. Div. 588. Verdict, $500. Re- versed. Collision Between Street Cars Collision between cars in fog. O’Brien v. Erie R. R., 139 App. Div. 291. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed.. Collision between cars on street railroad injuring motorman. Forton v. Crosstown Street R. R., 137 App. Div. 120. Verdict, $1,200. Reversed. Car on one road in collision with that of another. Powell v. Cohoes R. R. Co., 186 App. Div. 204. Verdict, $12,000. Re- versed. Collision between street cars of two different roads. Stanbridge v. Nassau Electric R. R., 185 App. Div. 38. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, affirmed. 46 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Collision Between Street Cars—Continued Passenger on car injured by rear end collision. Elliott v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 127 App. Div. 300. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. Collision in sub-way injuring passenger. Vickery v. Interborough R. T. Co., 126 App. Div. 481. , Appeal by defendant from order denying motion to set aside verdict, reversed. Collision of cars with no brakes, running down incline, causing injury. Lane v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 125 App. Div. 808. Verdict, $16,500. Re- versed. Collision between two cars on street railroad injuring motor- man. Durkee v. Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 122 App. Div. 278. Verdict, $4,500. Affirmed. Collision between two cars on defendant’s track. DesMoineaux v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 848. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Collision between trains on elevated railroad throwing plaintiff to street below. Dayton v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 119 App. Div. 32. Verdict, $15,000. Affirmed. Collision between trolley cars injuring motorman. Baldwin v. Schenectady R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 441. Non-suit granted, reversed. Collision between car floats injuring employee. Carlin v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 71 Mise. 521. Motion to set aside verdict and for new trial. Street car passenger thrown down by collision of car with an- other car on same track. Wilson v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 112 App. Div. 26. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Collision between cars crushing hand of passenger. Gott v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 110 App. Div. 18. Verdict, $800. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES —FACTS 47 Collision Between Street Cars—Continued Collision between cars on same line causing injury. Rosenberg v. N. Y. City R. R., 107 App. Div. 228. Municipal Court judg- ment for plaintiff, reversed. Collision between cars that crossed over switch causing injury. Klinger v. United Traction Co., 92 App. Div. 100. Verdict, $850. Affirmed. Collision between cars pushed along track by employees, in- juring plaintiff. Neary v. Development & Funding Co., 146 App. Div. 166. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Collision Between Vehicle and Street Car Vehicle and car colliding, injuring other vehicles. Stern v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 140 App. Div. 109. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Collision at grade crossing of wagon with car. Wendling v. International R. R., 189 App. Div. 868. Verdict, $1,225. Re- versed. Collision between vehicle and car. Krebs v. International R. R., 189 App. Div. 870. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Collision of vehicle with car. Burns v. N. Y. & L. I. Traction Co., 139 App. Div. 145. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Collision between car and vehicle and wagon. Levin v. Nassau Electric Co., 188 App. Div. 491. Verdict, $300. Truck hit by car while crossing street. _ White & Co. v. Joline, 67 Misc. 156. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Collision between street car and express wagon at intersection of street. Moore v. Rochester R. R., 1384 App. Div. 853. Verdict, $994.43. Affirmed. Collision of vehicle with trolley car while driving on track in street. Normand v. Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 474. Judgment on dismissal of complaint, reversed. 48 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Collision Between Vehicle and Street Car— Continued Collision between car and truck wagon on public street. Tucker v. Brooklyn H. R. R., 181 App. Div. 97. Verdict for defendant directed by court, reversed. ‘Collision of street: car with oil wagon because of failure to furnish shield to enable motorman to see. Forton v. Crosstown St. R. R., 63 Mise. 237. Motion for new trial on min- utes, new trial ordered. Collision of street car with truck injuring passenger. Newman v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 12. Judgment of Municipal Court, affirmed. Collision between car and truck throwing plaintiff from seat, causing injury. Caminez v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & Suburban R. R., 127 App. Div. 138. Appeal from order of Municipal Court. Reversed. Truck colliding with trolley pole, driver thrown and receiving injuries. Lanigan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 125 App. Div. 622. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Vehicle near track hit by trolley car. Lust v. Syracuse Rapid Transit Co., 142 App. Div. 290. Verdict, $35. Re- versed. | Sprinkling wagon with trolley car crossing street. Geisendorfer v. Union R. R. Co., 124 App. Div. 597. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Vehicle and car while crossing track. Huther v. Nassau Electric R. R., 142 App. Div. 522. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Between car and vehicle crossing track in night time. Geoghegan v. Union R. R. Co. of N. Y. City, 122 App. Div. 646. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fireman injured by colliding with trolley pole while mounting patrol wagon. Lambert v. Westchester Electric R. R. Co., 191 N. Y. 248. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 49 Collision Between Vehicle and Street Car—Continued Hit by trolley car while unloading blocks from vehicle. Volosko v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 190 N. ¥. 206. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Passenger on street car injured by collision between car and de- livery wagon. Bamberg v. International R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 1. Verdict, $8,000. Reversed. Between car and vehicle while crossing tracks of street railroad. Martin v. 42nd St. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R., 54 Misc. 645. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Collision between car and vehicle in which plaintiff was riding. Doctoroff v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 55 Misc. 216. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Collision of street car with truck which plaintiff was driving, causing injury. Heckmuller v. N. Y. City R. R., 54 Mise. 541. Municipal Court judgment, affirmed. Collision between trolley car and vehicle on track. Robinson v. Crosstown St. R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 548. Verdict, $200. Order denying motion for new trial, reversec, Collision of vehicle with street car and injuring passenger. Bamberg v. International R. R. Co., 53 Misc. 403. New trial ordered, ver- dict set aside. Car with vehicle while crossing tracks of street railroad. Heitz ». Yonkers R. R. Co., 117 App. Div. 746. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Vehicle with street car while crossing track of railroad. Ciarcia »v. Westchester Electric R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 899. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Street car with vehicle, plaintiff riding with driver injured. Kerin v. United Traction Co., 117 App. Div. 314. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Street car with wagon. Klassen v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 153. Verdict, $1,200. Reversed. 50 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Collision Between Vehicle and Street Car—Continued Street car colliding with loaded truck, injuring driver. Gormley v. 42nd St. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R., 116 App. Div. 155. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Street car with vehicle while latter was crossing track. Litzoar v. N. Y. City Railway Co., 116 App. Div. 477. Verdict, $250. Reversed. ; Street car and moving van. Damsky v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 52 Misc. 175. Judgment Municipal Court. Surface car and vehicle. Braun v. Union R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 566. Municipal Court judgment, reversed. Street car and vehicle colliding in which plaintiff was riding. Scheib v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 578. Verdict, $10,000. Af- firmed. Collision with street car when vehicle crossed track. Salcinger v. Interurban St. R. R., 52 Misc. 179. Order, setting aside ver- dict, reversed. Street car with van injuring driver. Moore v. Westchester Elec. R. R., 115 App. Div. 62. Judgment for defend- ant, reversed. Collision with trolley pole while climbing into fire patrol wagon. Lambert v. Westchester Elec. R. R., 115 App. Div. 78. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Between truck and electric car while crossing track. Littlefield v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Misc. 637. Municipal Court judg- ment for plaintiff, affirmed. Vehicle colliding with electric car. Muller v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Mise. 640. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Between car and vehicle driven by plaintiff when attempting to cross track. Norton v. Interurban St. R. R., 50 Misc. 621. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 51 Collision Between Vehicle and Street Car—Continued Vehicle hit by electric car while on street car track. Bang v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 113 App. Div. 673. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff. Vehicle partially on track to avoid street excavation hit by car in rear. Palmer v. Larchemont Horse R. R., 112 App. Div. 341. Verdict, $7,750. Reversed. Street car with truck partly on track. Central Brewing Co. v. N. Y. City R. R., 49 Misc. 523. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Street car and vehicle bearing load of sand. Murphy ». Metropolitan St. R. R., 110 App. Div. 717. Verdict, $680. Re- versed. Electric car with steam roller injuring plaintiff. Hanson v. John W. Whalen et al., 110 App. Div. 793. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmance. Trolley car with wagon driven by plaintiff while crossing tracks. Fancher v. Fonda Johnstown & Gloversville R. R., 111 App. Div. 4. Ver- dict, $125. Réversed. Collision between fire insurance patrol wagon and street car. Duffghe v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 109 App. Div. 603. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Street car on which plaintiff was passenger colliding with truck. Freeland v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 109 App. Div. 651. Verdict, $450. Reversed. Truck struck from behind by street car while on track. Kueski v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 207. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Street car colliding with truck which plaintiff was driving. Rutz v. N. Y. City R. R., 107 App. Div. 568. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Collision between ash cart of street department and street car. McGrath v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 47 Misc. 104. Dismissing complaint, reversed. 52 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Collision Between Vehicle and Street Car—Continued Truck and street car colliding causing truck to strike plaintiff. Demarest v. 42nd St. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R., 104 App. Div. 503. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Collision between street car and carriage in which plaintiff was driving, injuring plaintiff. Powers v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 105 App. Div. 358. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Collision between ice wagon driven by plaintiff and electric car. Robinson v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 103 App. Div. 248. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Collision between bicycle and car when crossing track. Knapp v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 103 App. Div. 252. Verdict, $500. Re- versed. Wagon driven across track struck by car going in same direction. N. Y. Bread Co. 7. N. Y. City R. R., 46 Misc. 89. Municipal Court judg- ment for plaintiff, affirmed. Collision between street car and ice wagon injuring passenger. Maher rv. Metropolitan St. R. R., 102 App. Div. 517. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Vehicle struck by car coming from the rear while on track. Barringer v. United Traction Co., 101 App. Div. 330. County Court judg- ment for plaintiff, affirmed. Car colliding with horse and wagon injuring passenger. Grant rv. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 99 App. Div. 422. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmance. Collision between plaintiff's truck and defendant’s car causing injury. O’Donnell v. Welz & Zerweck, 97 App. Div. 286. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Street car colliding with vehicle at intersection of streets. Solomon v. Buffalo R. R. Co., 96 App. Div. 487. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Car and express wagon colliding injuring assistant to express- man. Wilson v. United Traction Co., 94 App. Div. 539. Verdict, $500. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 53 Collision Between Vehicle and Street Car—Continued Collision between car and horse and wagon left unattended, horse running away. Brand v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 95 App. Div. 64. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Collision between trolley car and vehicle, killing driver. Palmer v. Larchmont Horse R. R., 95 App. Div. 106. Verdict, $8,000. Reversed. Car and truck colliding injuring plaintiff by broken glass. Freeland v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 43 Misc. 132. Motion for new trial denied. Wagon and electric car colliding. Belford v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 43 Misc. 148. Motion for new trial denied. Collision between car and vehicle driven by plaintiff. Binsell v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 91 App. Div. 402. Verdict, $155.35. Reversed. Car and express wagon colliding breaking windows of. car in- juring passenger. Frank v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 91 App. Div. 485. Verdict, $3,000. Af- firmed. Collision between wagon and car on narrow bridge throwing driver of vehicle. Lockwood »v. Troy City R. R. Co., 92 App. Div. 112. Verdict, $800. Re- versed. Collision between car and truck causing passenger to be hit by- shaft of truck. Smith v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 92 App. Div. 213. Verdict, $25,000. Modified and affirmed. Car and truck colliding causing injury. Klimpl v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 92 App. Div. 291. Verdict, $1,500. Re- versed, Collision between car and cab at intersection of streets. Cushing v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 92 App. Div. 510. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. 54 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Collision Between Vehicle and Street Car—Continued Truck and street car colliding, injuring boy riding with driver. Robinson v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 91 App. Div. 158. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Collision between wagon and street car. Goldkrans v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 89 App. Divs 590. Verdict, $225. Reversed. Street car colliding with hook and ladder truck. City of N. Y. v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 90 App. Div. 66. Verdict, $971. Affirmed. Collision between car and vehicle on which plaintiff was riding. Venuta v. N. Y. W. & C. Traction Co., 87 App. Div. 561. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Collision between car and vehicle overturning same and killing intestate. Perras v. United Traction Co., 88 App. Div. 260. Verdict, $2,000. Re- versed. Vehicle on street car track injured by rear end collision with car. Geleta v. Buffalo & Niagara Falls Elec. R. R., 88 App. Div. 372. Verdict, $1,100. Reversed. Car and vehicle colliding. Freeman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 87 App. Div. 127. County Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Collision between wagon crossing track at street intersection and car going 20 miles per hour. Lane v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 85 App. Div. 85. Verdict, $25,000. Af- firmed. Vehicle struck by car while crossing track. Schmedding v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 85 App. Div. 24. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Wagon hit by car running at high speed in dense fog, injuring passenger in car. Fisher v. Union R. R. of N. Y. City, 86 App. Div. 365. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 55 Collision Between Vehicle and Street Car—Continued Collision between car and vehicle the latter driven along track. Belford v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 86 App. Div. 388. Verdict, $235. Reversed. Horse and wagon struck by trolley car on city street. Hickey, Kaplau & Wiltzek v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 693. Verdict, $300. Affirmed. Cold Storage Damage to fruit by excessive temperature. Ballston Refrigerator Co. v. Eastern States R. R., 142 App. Div. 135. Judg- ‘ment for plaintiff, affirmed. Concrete Structure collapsing while lowering into excavation. Ward v. Edison Elec. Illumination Co., 124 App. Div. 22. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Contractor Employee of contractor on railroad hit by train from failure of flagman to warn, etc. Gorman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 131 App. Div. 207. Verdict, $2,700. Affirmed. Hit by car of contractors used to transport material while cross- ing track. Matrusciello v. Milliken Bros. (Inc.), 141 App. Div. 769. Judgment dis- missing complaint, affirmed. Falling from cable used by independent contractor to carry hod. Goldstein v. Wolkenburg, 54 Misc. 545. Judgment Municipal Court, re- versed. Obstruction along tow path of canal caused by contractor. Dunn v. Empire Engineering Co., 147 App. Div. 237. Verdict, $400. Af- firmed. Conductor Conductor on railroad falling into pit caused by sudden forward movement of car. Dulfer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 115 App. Div. 670. Verdict, $500. Re- versed. 56 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Cranes Crushed by travelling crane while standing on girder, etc. Foster v. Crooker Co., 142 App. Div. 268. Verdict, $7,500. Affirmed. Damage Damage of fruit by excessive temperature. Ballston Refrigerator Co. v. Eastern States R. R., 142 App. Div. 185. Judg- ment for plaintiff, affirmed. Damage resulting from injury by accident. Hack v. Dady, 142 App. Div. 510. Verdict, $2,000. Affirmed. Damage from freezing of products in transportation. Richardson v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 122 App. Div. 120. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Rots Dangerous Weapons Injuries from loaded revolver lying in unlocked bureau drawer. Ship v. Fridenburg, 132 App. Div. 782. Appeal from order, reversed. Derrick Fall of derrick used in hoisting materials. Lockhart v. Hoffman, 197 N. Y. 331. Judgment for plaintiff reversed; reversing 128 App. Div. 917. Derrick falling injuring plaintiff. Ovelsen v. Howes Transportation & Con. Co., 139 App. Div. 158. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. 6 Injury from breaking of cable on derrick. Mulligan v. McDonald, 135 App. Div. 536. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Injury by fall of boom not fastened down. Pratt v. McKee, 135 App. Div. 752. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Breaking of boom line to derrick causing fall of iron column which was being lifted, causing injury. Hurley v. Olcott, 134 App. Div. 631. Verdict, $25,000. Affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 57 Derrick—Continued Hit by bucket of derrick used for hoisting purposes causing fall into excavation. Simpson v. Foundation Company, 132 App. Div. 375. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Fall of derrick caused by leg of derrick breaking. McDonnell v. Metropolitan Bridge & Construction Co., 181 App. Div. 301. Verdict, $7,000. Reversed. Fall of derrick by breaking of guy rod. Watson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 127 App. Div. 134. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Breaking of derrick under weight. Hanna v. Pitt & Scott (Limited), 121 App. Div. 420. Judgment Municipal Court, reversed. Hit by hoisting buckets raised on derrick, causing injury. McGovern v. Degnon-McLean Contracting Co., 120 App. Div. 524. Ver- dict, $400. Reversed. Improper operation of derrick causing fall of iron beams. Thompson v. Post & McCord, 143 App. Div. 394. Verdict, $2,720. Re- versed. Partial overturning of movable. derrick injuring plaintiff. Redhead v. Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co., 116 App. Div. 34. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of derrick due to defect in iron band fastened from: boom to mast. Freel v. Chrome Steel Works, 114 App. Div. 18. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, affirmed. (Mem.) Fall of portable derrick used in erecting building. Fallon v. Mertz, 110 App. Div. 755. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Hit by arm of derrick extending over track while engineer of locomotive. McAuley v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 111 App. Div. 117. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. 58 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Derrick—Continued Fall of boom due to rusting and corroding of cable. Connors v. King Line Limited, 98 App. Div. 261. Verdict, $10,000. Af- firmed. Fall of derrick car from bridge owing to failure to anchor. Wagner v. N. Y. C. & St. L. R. R., 93 App. Div. 14. ,Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Fall of derrick because of insecure guy ropes injuring employee. Bellegarde v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 90 App. Div. 577. Verdict, $1,000. Affirmed. Hand cut off by iron section falling into place. McGlynn v. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 144 App. Div. 343. Verdict, $20,000. Affirmed. Hit by sliding pipe striking legs of derrick not properly stayed, injuring plaintiff. Tamaseric v. Beckwith, 145 App. Div. 78. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Fall from derrick because of failure of co-employee to fasten boom. Pratt v. McKee, 147 App. Div. 72. Verdict, $7,100. Reversed. Derailment Street car derailed by horse shoe getting into slot of track and stopping car. Miller v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Misc. 650. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff. Locomotive derailed by ice covered track, killing engineer. Neagle v. Syracuse, Binghamton & N. Y.R.R., 109 App. Div. 339. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Street car derailed injuring plaintiff. Murphy ». Interurban St. R. R., 105 App. Div. 110. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Derailment of street car throwing plaintiff against bridge while standing on platform. Beers v. Westside R. R. Co., 101 App. Div. 308. Judgment for defendant, reversed. : A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS —— 59 Derailment—Continued Car derailed and plunging into river killing motorman, through defective safeguard. Baruth v. Poughkeepsie City & W. F. El. R. R., 89 App. Div. 324. Re- versed. Derailment of construction train by running over cow, failure to fence track. Mendizabel v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 89 App. Div. 387. Verdict, $17,000. Affirmed. Derailment of car injuring employee laying brick on side walk by car line. Kelly v. United Traction Co., 88 App. Div. 234. Verdict, $4,500. Reversed. Deposit Moneys Deposit moneys paid by bank on forged drafts. Kenney v. Harlem Savings Bank, 61 Misc. 144. Dismissal of complaint, for failure to produce book, reversed. , Door Way Fall of person standing in door way resting against guard in door way which falls from its sockets. Fahey v. New Amsterdam Gas Co., 184 App. Div. 611. Verdict, $4,500. Reversed. Shutting door of vehicle injuring passenger.. Sturgis v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 122 App. Div. 658. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Passenger injured by door closed on hand by conductor of car. Moses Co. v. Interborough R. T. Co., 113 App. Div. 577. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Opening of baggage car door injuring elbow of passenger in slots of car. Wood v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 770. Non-suit, reversed. Fall of door to dock injuring plaintiff. Oats v. N. Y. Dock Co., 109 App. Div. 841. Dismissal of complaint, af- firmed. 60 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Door Way—Continued Bruising of hand by slamming of car door. Muller v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 48 Mise. 524. City Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall of trap door carrying down plaintiff with it. Bovee v. International Paper Co., 108 App. Div. 94.» County Court judg- ment for plaintiff. Passenger on car injured by closing of door catching plaintiff’s fingers in door. O’Rourke v. Interborough R. T. Co., 46 Misc. 453. Municipal Court judg- ment for plaintiff. Customer in store hit by swinging door. Pardington v. Abraham, 93 App. Div. 359. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Passenger cutting hand on glass door while attempting to stop its swinging. Fahner v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 86 App. Div. 488. Verdict, $400. Re- versed. Dock Falling through hole in dock. Birch v. City of New York, 121 App. Div. 395. Appeal by plaintiff from judgment Supreme Court for defendant, reversal. Drugs Improper labelling of drugs causing injury. Willson v. Faxon, Williams & Faxon, 138 App. Div. 359. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Injuries resulting from tablets containing calomel unknown to purchaser. Willson v. Faxon, Williams & Faxon, 63 Misc. 561. Motion for new trial on minutes granted. Giving carbolic acid to customer burning and injuring plain- tiff. Horst v. Walter, 53 Misc. 594. J udgment Municipal Court, affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 61 Dynamite Unexpected explosion of after blast in tunnel. Riggs v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 202 N. Y. 129. J udgment for plaintiff reversed; reversing, 134 App. Div. 672. Electricity, Electrical Shocks Fall from telephone pole caused by electric shock. Raab v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 139 App. Div. 286. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Shock received while working near wire. Courtney v. Niagara Falls Power Co., 138 App. Div. 383. Verdict, $7,000. Injured from electric shock, telephone line. Loughlin v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 136 App. Div. 916. Judg- ment for plaintiff, affirmed. Shock caused by defective insulation. Loughlin v. Edison Elec. Illuminating Co., 136 App. Div. 916. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Death from contact with live rail exposed. Bernadino v. N. Y. C. R. R., 136 App. Div. 577. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Injury from electric current on telephone line. Lee v. Stillwater & Mechanicsville R. R., 140 App. Div. 779. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Death from shock by electric wire falling in street. McNamee v. Western Union Telephone Co., 140 App. Div. 874. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Injured from shock caused by high tension wire falling. Herbert v. Hudson River Electric Co., 186 App. Div. 107. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Plaintiff killed by electric shock while climbing pole to adjust bulbs where there was leakage of electricity. Hickock v. Auburn Light, Heat & Power Co., 200 N. Y. 464. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed; reversing, 136 App. Div. 907. 62 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Electricity, Electrical Shocks—Continued Shock causing fall while cutting limbs of trees. Estabrook v. Newbergh Light, Heat & Power Co., 141 App. Div. 683. Ver- dict, $10,000. Reversed. Killed by electric current while stringing wires. Conklin v. Central N. Y. Telephone & Telg. Co., 130 App. Div. 308. Verdict $2,000. Reversed. Electric shock injuring passenger on car. Endres v. International R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 785. Verdict, $575. Re- versed. Death from shock caused by defective hood on lamp. Gardner v. Schenectady Railway Co., 128 App. Div. 12. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Shock from pole along public street. Moglia v. Nassau Elec. R. R., 127 App. Div. 243. Verdict, $650. Affirmed. Shock received by turning on current by foreman. Quinlan v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 191 N. Y. 329. Affirmance. Shock from coming in contact with third rail. James v. Cranford, 123 App. Div. 558. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Shock from poorly insulated wire. Dutcher v. Rockland Elec. Co., 123 App. Div. 765. Verdict, $6,000. Af- firmed. Shock received by coming in contact with third rail. Causullo v. Lenox Construction Co., 122 App. Div. 672. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Shock from electric light wire falling on decedent. Gordon v. Ashley, 191 N. Y. 186. Judgment for defendant, reversed; re- versing, 114 App. Div. 908. Shock caused by stepping on electrically charged rail. Sullivan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 117 App. Div. 784. Verdict, $200. Reversed. Shock caused by turning on current while employee at work. Van-Alstine v. Standard Light, Heat & Power Co., 116 App. Div. 100. Ver- dict, $3,500. Reversed. : A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 63 Electricity, Electrical Shocks—Continued Shock received from feed cable by breaking of guy wire. Carey v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 247. Verdict. $700. Re- versed. Employee repairing wires and poles injured by electric shock from defective insulation. Mangan v. Hudson R. Telephone Co., 50 Misc. 388. Judgment for defend- ant on demurrer, affirming. Electric shock from fallen wire killing horse. Jones v. Union R. R. Co., 50 Misc. 651. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Contact with wire overcharged with current, causing death. Witmer v. Buffalo & Niagara Falls E. L. & P. Co., 112 App. Div. 698. Ver- dict, $6,700. Affirmed. Electric shocks received while trimming lamps. Gardner v. Schenectady R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 133. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Shock received from wires carrying current to third rail system. Carey v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 50 Misc. 335. City Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Shock received from contact with third rail while shoveling snow with scoop. Smith v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 202. Verdict, $1,900. Re- versed. Lineman receiving shock through metallic measuring tape he was using. Murphy v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 127 App. Div. 450. Verdict, $2,250. Affirmed. Shock caused by breaking of transformer permitting current to enter house. ° Morhard v. Richmond Light & R. R. Co. Verdict, $40,000. Affirmed, 111 App. Div. 353. Shock from telephone wire over highway in contact with electric wire. Harning v. Hudson River Tel. Co. et al., 111 App. Div. 122. Verdict, $11.000. Affirmed. 64 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES - PACTS Electricity, Electrical Shocks—Continucd Shock received by lineman stringing wire by contact with wire of another company. Anglin v. American Con. & Trading Co., 109 App. Div. 237. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed, Shock reecived from coming in contact with broken electric light wire. O'Leary v. Glens Falls Gas & Hl. 1. Co., 107 App. Div. 505. Judgment for defendant, reversed, Icxplosion on car caused from water due to excessive speed of car. Dowling ». Brooklyn Heights R. R., 107 App. Div. 312. Judgment for de- fondant, reversed. Tire resulting from negligent installation of clectric wires and lights. German American Ins. Co. 0. N.Y. Gas & Elec. Co., 103 App. Div. 310. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Shock from working near electric wire on which insulation material had been worn off. Trish vy. Union Bag & Paper Co., 103 App. Div. 45. Verdict, $5,000. Af- firmed, Electric shock from incandescent near are wire. Predmore ov, Consumer’s Light & Power Co,, 99 App. Div. 551. Verdict, $2,000, Affirmed. Electric shock caused by contact with live wire. Buckley v. Westchesteg Lighting Co., 93 App. Div. 436. Judgment. for defendant, affirmed. Electric shock from fallen light wire by coming in contact with the same. Wolpers v. N. Y. & Queens Co. I. L. & P. Co., 91 App. Div. 424. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Defective wiring causing fire destroying building. Herzog v. Municipal Mec. Light, Co., 89 App. Div. 569. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 65 Electricity, Electrical Shocks—Continued Defective installation of electric wires causing plaintiff injury. Kennealy v. Westchester Elec. R. R., 86 App. Div. 293. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Shock causing fall of lineman from telephone pole carrying high tension wire, defective insulation. Geer v. N. Y. & Pa. Tel. & Telg. Co., 144 App. Div. 874. Judgment for defendant, dismissal of complaint. Electric shock to pedestrian from wire falling in street and con- tacting with high tension wire. Gaetzens v. City of N. Y., 146 App. Div. 495. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. ‘Shock from wire in car barn killing emrloyee while repairing a defective car. Grief v. Buffalo, L. & R. R. R. Co., 205 N. Y. 239. Reversing Appellate Division judgment for defendant, 145 App. Div. 910. Electricity Electric light pulley falling from cross arm, breaking under weight. Jobnston v. Syracuse Lighting Co., 193 N. ¥. 592. Judgment for plaintiff reversed. Reversing, 122 App. Div. 895. Change of wire as to motor causing fall of elevator. Fiesel v. N. Y. Edison Co. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. 123 App. Div. 676. Fall of electric lamp in store injuring employee. Fish v. Waverly Electric Light & Power Co., 189 N. Y. 336. Judgment for defendant reversed; reversing, 108 App. Div. 356. Elevator, Fall of Objects in Shaft Fall of goods from failure to guard. Hackett v. Kochler & Co., 140 App. Div. 448. Verdict, $4,000. Affirmed. Fall of bundle of iron pipe from elevator in building. Walsh v. Riesenberg ef al., 110 App. Div. 19. Verdict, $15,000. Reversed. Fall of door to elevator caused by counter weight breaking and causing the car to suddenly move upward. Ryan v. Cortland Carriage Goods Co., 133 App. Div. 467. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. 66 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Elevator, Fall of Objects in Shaft—Continued Fall of plaster from elevator shaft striking plaintiff causing in- jury. Frahm v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 131 App. Div. 747. Verdict, $8,000. Reduced to $5,000. Fall of trap door down elevator shaft causing injury. Bradford v. Banker Brother’s Co., 122 App. Div. 523. Verdict, $9,000. Reversed. Fall of material from hod elevator injuring plaintiff. Lawrence v. Stanley Hod Elevator Co., 55 Misc. 257. Municipal Court judgment, reversed. Fali of iron roller down elevator shaft from door being only partly closed, through negligence of co-employee. Debach v. Gair Co., 143 App. Div. 489. Verdict, $5,500. Reversed. Hit by counterweights by sudden starting of elevator while working in shaft. Kennedy v. Wanamaker, 145 App. Div. 428. Judgment for defendant, dis- missal of complaint. Fall of pipes raised by elevator through window striking person in street. Connor v. Koch, 89 App. Div. 33. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. Fall of dumb waiter caused by defect of alleged rope. Muller v. Vesell, 117 App. Div. 72. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Fall of broken wheel injuring plaintiff while elevator being re- paired. . Kahner v. Otis Elevator Co., 96 App. Div. 169. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed. Fall of bundle of iron pipe from elevator in building. Walsh v. Riesenberg et al., 110 App. Div. 19. (Mem.) Verdict, $15,000. Reversed. ; Elevator, Fall of Person From Fall from elevator platform. Persons v. Bush Terminal Co., 68 Misc. 573. Verdict, $5,500. Motion to set aside verdict denied. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 67 Elevator, Fall of Person From—Continued Fall down elevator shaft while attempting to board. Crogham ». Hedden Construction Co., 147 App. Div. 631. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Elevator, Fall of Elevator Cage Fall of hoisting elevator in building, failure to guard causing injury. Sabatino v. Roebling Construction Co., 186 App. Div. 217. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Fall of freight elevator. Krause v. Gair Co., 1386 App. Div. 357. New trial granted. Fall of elevator by failing to guard or repair it, causing injury. Stokes v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 184 App. Div. 368. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of elevator by cable breaking from running off the cable drum and around small shaft causing injury. Bernadac v. Schencke Piano Co., 134 App. Div. 523. Verdict, $4,350. Re- versed. Fall of elevator by steel keys holding drum to elevator shirring off allowing drum to turn on shaft. Scott v. Nauss Bros. Co., 141 App. Div. 255. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Fall of freight elevator on which plaintiff was riding. Young v. Mason Stable Co., 193 N. Y. 188. Dismissal of complaint affirmed. Failing to stop going upward, drops to bottom of shaft. Keller v. Wave Realty Co., 128 App. Div. 154. Verdict, $6,500. Reversed. Fall of elevator caused by change of electric wire to motor. Fiesel v. N. Y. Edison Co., 123 App. Div. 676. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Fall of elevator by breaking cable on engineer’s failure to stop. Bowers v. Norwich Pharmacal Co., 124 App. Div. 31. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall of elevator by breaking of head piece. Haigh v. Edelmeyer & Morgan Hod Elevator Co., 123 App. Div. 376. Ver- dict, $2,500. Reversed. 68 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Elevator, Fall of Elevator Cage—Continued Fall of defective and unsafe elevator constructed and operated by defendant. Harris v. Baltimore Machine & Elevator Works, 188 N. Y. 141. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed, affirming, 112 App. Div. 889. Fall of bucket on mine elevator caused by defective cable, caus- ing injury. Owen v. Retsof Mining Co., 119 App. Div. 618. Verdict, $4,500. Motion for new trial denied. Fall of elevator when overloaded and injuring plaintiff. McDonald v. Simpson-Crawford Co., 114 App. Div. 859. Verdict, $1,250. Reversed. Fall of elevator because of defective cables not babbitted. Harris v. Baltimore Machine & Elevator Co., 112 App. Div. 389. Verdict, $3,750. Affirmed. Fall of elevator causing injury. Harkins v. Queens Insurance Co., 106 App. Div. 170. Verdict, $6,500. Reversed. Fall of elevator injuring passenger therein. Stackpole v. Wray, 99 App. Div. 262. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall of freight elevator in building causing death of person rid- ing therein. Starer v. Stern, 100 App. Div. 393. Order setting aside verdict, affirmed. Hit by counter weight of freight elevator falling when loaded. Bogendoerfer v. Jacobsy 97 App. Div. 355. Motion for new trial granted. Fall of freight elevator caused by defective clamping. Young v. Mason Stable Co., 96 App. Div. 305. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Injury by hoisting elevator from failure to guard signal rope. McDonnell v. Robinson Co., 136 App. Div. 598. Verdict, $4,500. Reversed. Hoisting elevator causing injury. Flansburg v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 136 App. Div. 551. Verdict, $5,500. Order setting aside verdict, affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 69 Elevator, Fall of Elevator Cage—Continued Fall of servant of sub-tenant by breaking of elevator chains. McCallum v. Dodge, 148 App. Div. 86. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Sudden unexpected movement of elevator by engineer’s failing to obey signal to lower elevator. McConnell v. Thomas & Buckley Operating Co., 148 App. Div. 635. Ver- dict, $3,500. Reversed. Fall of freight elevator by breaking of cable. Schactele v. Bristor, 148 App. Div. 848. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Elevator, Fall Down Elevator Shaft Fall down shaft by backing off. Brudie v. Renault Freres Selling Branch, 138 App. Div. 112. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. Injury from breaking of elevator. Haigh v..Edelmeyer & Morgan Hod Elevator Co., 186 App. Div. 484. Ver- dict, $2,000. Reversed. Fall from elevator when putting truck on elevator platform. Nichols v. Searle Mfg. Co., 184 App. Div. 62. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Falling down elevator shaft when obeying foreman’s instructions. Hillyer v. Laight Street Stores, 183 App. Div. 125. Verdict, $4,000. Af- firmed. Intestate working on swinging scaffold in elevator shaft thrown to the floor by scaffold not properly braced or secured. Tiedjen v. National Elevator Co., 141 App. Div. 529. Judgment dismissing complaint, reversed. Operator attempting to get out between floors when elevator caught and falls down shaft sustaining damages. Jackson v. Greene, 201 N. Y. 76. Judgment for plaintiff reversed, reversing 134 App. Div. 918. Falling down elevator shaft by sudden starting of hoist. Boyle v. McNulty Brothers, 129 App. Div. 412. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall from door open as invitation to enter. Kaplan v. Lyons Building and Operating Co., 61 Misc. 315. City Ct. judg- ment for plaintiff, reversed. 70 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Elevator, Fall Down Elevator Shaft—Continued Falling down elevator by starting of same. Cunningham v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. Co., 125 App. Div. 688. Verdict, $40,000. Affirmed. Employee backing into elevator shaft, elevator having been suddenly moved. Burlingame v. Dykeman, 121 App. Div. 904. Judgment for plaintiff, af- firmed. Fall down elevator shaft in hotel. Donohue v. Braaf, 122 App. Div. 552. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Fall down elevator shaft because door left open. Wilcox v. City of Rochester, 114 App. Div. 734. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Affirming 190 N. Y. 137. Backing into open shaft by failure of gate to drop. Levy v. Mott Iron Works, 143 App. Div. 7. Verdict, $12,000. Reversed. Walking through open door of and falling down shaft. Wendell v. Leo, 115 App. Div. 850. Motion by plaintiff, for new trial. Fall down shaft in space between elevator and side of shaft. Gray v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 187 N. Y.376. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall down elevator shaft, elevator having been moved. Croce v. Buckley, 115 App. Div. 354. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall down elevator shaft by walking into open door of shaft. Wilcox v. City of Rochester, 114 App. Div. 734. Verdict, $2,070.50. Af- firmed. Fall down unguarded shaft of elevator used in building con- struction. : Kiernan v. Eidlitz, 115 App. Div. 141. Verdict, $6,250. Reversed. Breaking of bottom of elevator causing plaintiff to fall. Samuels v. McKesson, 113 App. Div. 497. Motion for new trial. Fall of employee down unguarded elevator shaft not knowing it to be open. Rooney v. Brogan Construction Co., 113 App. Div. 813. Judgment for defendant, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 71 Elevator, Fall Down Elevator Shaft—Continued Fall down elevator shaft from walking into open shaft in day- time. Fink v. Hartog & Beinhauer Candy Co., 112 App. Div. 387. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. Fall down elevator by elevator being moved during absence of decedent. Cholet v. City of Syracuse, 111 App. Div. 1. Judgment for plaintiff. re- versed. Fall down shaft by car being moved from its position and in- sufficient light in shaft. Cholet v. City of Syracuse, 111 App. Div. 1. Judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. Fall through elevator opening between basements, no guards provided. Washington v. Episcopal Church of St. Peters, 111 App. Div. 402. Verdict, $900. Reversed. Fall down shaft, sudden stopping of elevator causing load to fall hitting plaintiff. Conroy v. Acken, 110 App. Div. 48. Verdict, $12,000. Reversed. Fall down shaft, unguarded elevator. Kiernan v. Eidlitz, 109 App. Div. 726. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall down elevator at night, door open and no lights. Zilner v. Graves Co., 106 App. Div. 583. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Fall down shaft at night by stumbling into unguarded opening. Rooney v. Brogan Construction Co., 107 App. Div. 258. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Policeman falling down elevator shaft, at night, unguarded. Welch v. Waterbury & Co., 136 App. Div. 315. Verdict, $7,000. Reversed. Fall down elevator shaft by giving way of iron support. Hartman v. Clark, 104 App. Div. 62. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Fall down elevator shaft left open and unguarded. Thaney v. Frederick & Sons Co., 44 Mise. 134. Motion for new trial denied. 72 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Elevator, Fall Down Elevator Shaft—Continued Fall down elevator shaft, no proof as to cause of accident. Lowry v. Anderson Co., 96 App. Div. 465. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Fall down elevator shaft caused by sudden lowering of elevator while being loaded. Moran v. Carlson, 95 App. Div. 116. Verdict, $1,000. Affirmed. Fall down shaft used to convey materials in building. Rooney v. Brogan Construction Co., 147 App. Div. 68. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Elevator, Injuries from Operation of Injured by trap door of elevator, no signals being given. Reynolds v. Seneca Falls Mfg. Co., 137 App. Div. 446. Non-suit reversed. Overcrowded and open space between gate and floor causing in- jury to projecting foot. Lee v. Western Electric Co., 185 App. Div. 60. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Employee caught by automatic gate of elevator and injured. Knickerbocker v. General R. R. Signal Co., 183 App. Div. 787. Verdict, $700. Reversed. Boy under 16 years of age killed while running an elevator. Kirsher v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 184 App. Div. 144. Verdict, $2,250. Af- firmed. Foot caught while standing on freight elevator by projecting over. Malaverneri v. Turner’ Construction Co., 141 App. Div. 360. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Defective signals causing elevator to descend. Galino v. Fleischman Realty Co., 130 App. Div. 605. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Hit by elevator in shait. Schwartz v. Onward Construction Co., 130 App. Div. 588. Judgment dis- missing complaint, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 73 Elevator, Injuries from Operation of—Continued No guard or warning of elevator going down, hitting person below. Anderson v. Pelham Hod Elevating Co. & P. Operating Co., 129 App. Div. 639. Dismissing complaint, new trial denied. Injured while stepping out of elevator by suddenly starting up- ward catching plaintiff between floor and top of door. Sciolaro v. Asch, 129 App. Div. 86. Verdict, $12.500. Affirmed. Elevator started while cleaning sheaves, catching plaintiff’s fingers. Falk v. Havemeyer, 123 App. Div. 657. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Injured while being carried up in elevator. Fouquet v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 123 App. Div. 804, affirmed. Dismissal of complaint. Employee hit by elevator while working on door to shaft. McDermott v. Straus, 123 App. Div. 303. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Using ash elevator which tipped over injuring plaintiff. Ford v. Adams Dry Goods Co., 121 App. Div. 895. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Falling and sliding on to bucket in grain elevator. Lynch v. American Linseed Co., 122 App. Div. 428. Verdict, $20,000. Affirmed. ’ Foot caught between edge of elevator and floor. Aken v. Barnet & Aufsesser Knitting Co., 118 App. Div. 463. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Injured while attempting to enter elevator in city hall by negli- gence of operator. Moest v. City of Buffalo & County of Erie, 116 App. Div. 657. Verdict, $4,100. Reversed. Injured while stepping off elevator in building. Fowquet v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 53 Misc. 121. Verdict set aside and motion to dismiss granted. 74 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Elevator, Injuries from Operation of—Coniinued Foot caught while projecting through broken slat in side of elevator. Rosenberg v. Schoolher, 116 App. Div. 289. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Elevator heavily loaded with freight and tipping causing in- jury. McGuirk v. Manhattan Life Ins, Co., 50 Mise. 590. City Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall into grain elevator, buckets carried down by grain, no guards provided. Lynch v. American Linseed Co., 113 App. Div. 502. Judgment for defend- ant, dismissal of complaint reversed. Injured while riding on hod elevator by negligence of servant. McDonough v. Pelham Hod Elevating Co., 111 App. Div. 585. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Movement of elevator causing death of employee standing partly in and partly outside of it. Green v. Urban Cont. & Heating Co., 106 App. Div. 460. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Breaking of defective rope used with steam shaft in grain elevator. Connors v. Great Northern Elevator Co., 90 App. Div. 311. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. ; Head caught by descending pan in conveyor in tool factory. Gallenkamp v. Garvin Machine Co., 91 App. Div. 141. Dismissal of com- plaint reversed. Injured by elevator moving down on plaintiff. Lynch v. Elektron Mfg. Co., 195 N. Y.171. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 124 App. Div. 93% Embankment Falling of stone from embankment causing death of workman. Reris v. Haines, 134 App. Div. 402. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Excavation, Persons Falling Into Failure to give warning of when made in a path. Fox v. Warner, Quinlan Asphalt Co., 139 App. Div. 807. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 75 Excavation, Persons Falling Into—Continued Falling into excavation caused by being caught hold of by em- ployee. Fillipone v. Reisenberger, 135 App. Div. 707. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Falling into excavation on adjoining land. Kleinberg v. Schmeen, 134 App. Div. 493. Appeal from order. Order denying motion to dismiss complaint, reversed. Falling into excavation dug near walk. Breen v. Gill, 125 App. Div. 642. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Workman in excavation injured by car falling into. Evans v. Pearson & Son, 125 App. Div: 666. Verdict, $6,000. Affirmed. Falling into excavation in street when holding on to car. Howard »v. 42nd St. M. & St. Nicholas Ave. R. R., 125 App. Div. 776. Ver- dict, $2,500. Reversed. Stepping into trench excavated in constructing pavement. McHugh ». Inter-state Paving Co., 121 App. Div. 517. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Sinking into hole caused by cave-in or sinking of dirt over water mains. Cunningham v. Dady, 119 App. Div. 89. Verdict, $2,000. Affirmed. Fall from bridge temporarily constructed over excavation in street. Bell v. City of New York, 114 App. Div. 22. Order of court dismissing com- plaint, affirmed. Fall of temporary bridge erected over excavation. Parks v. City of New York, 111 App. Div. 836. Verdict, $25,000. Affirmed. Falling into excavation while leaving premises, which excavation was not known to be in highway. Crimmins v. United Engineering & Contracting Co., 49 Misc. 622. Dis- missal of complaint, affirmed. Railroad employee falling into excavation dug by defendant against derailing switch. Wood v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 184 N. Y. 290. 76 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Excavation, Persons Falling Into—Continued Falling into excavation near railroad track. Wood v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 93 App. Div. 53. Judgment for defend- ant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Child falling into excavation on defendant’s property left un- guarded. Goldberg v. Graham, 146 App. Div. 501. Judgment for defendant, dismissal of complaint. Falling into excavation by sidewalk when flagstone of walk falls into excavation. Dougherty v. City of N. Y., 146 App. Div. 727. Judgment for defendant, dismissal of complaint. Fall into excavation on land which licensee is using. Fox v. Warner, Quinnlan Asphalt Co., 204 N. Y. 240. Dismissal of com- plaint affirmed. Reversing 139 App. Div. 807. Excavation, Falling Embankment Causing Injury Fall of earth from insufficient slope of pit. Beregszazi v. Kreischer Brick Mfg. Co., 140 App. Div. 155. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall of clay bank injuring decedent. Baccelli v. N. E. Brick Co., 1388 App. Div. 656. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of embankment in cellar causing injury. Logerto v. Central Bldg. Co., 198 N. Y. 390. Judgment for plaintiff, af- firmed. 129 App. Div. 922, reversed. Death caused by fall of embankment while excavation being made as directed by superintendent. Palin v. Cary Brick Co., 133 App. Div. 483. Judgment on dismissal of complaint. Falling in excavation and the falling in of trench injuring work- man. Dougherty v. Westinghouse, et al., 124 App. Div. 894. Judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Fall of frozen earth while making excavation. Josupeet v. City of Niagara Falls, 70 Misc. 638. Verdict for plaintiff. Mo- tion for new trial, denied. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 77 Excavation, Falling Embankment Causing Injury—Continued Fall of bank of earth while excavating cellar. Logerto v. Central Building Co., 123 App. Div. 840. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Fall or caving in of pavement after excavation. Cunningham v. Dady, 191 N. Y. 152. Judgment for plaintiff reversed. Reversing 119 App. Div. 89. Fall of crust of coal frozen, injuring plaintiff. Sienbida v. Tonawanda Board & Paper Co., 121 App. Div. 70. Verdict, $800. Affirmed. Fall of bank of earth injuring employee. Russell v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 188 N. Y. 344. Judgment for plaintiff, reversing 112 App. Div. 903. Fall of land slide in excavation. Heffern v. Village of Haverstraw, 143 App. Div. 527. Judgment for de- fendant, affirmed in part. Fall of clay bank at foot of which plaintiff was working. Reilly v. Troy Brick Co., 184 N. Y. 399. Judgment for defendant reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Cave-in of trench in which decedent was working. Overbaugh v. Wieber, 106 App. Div. 283. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Fall of caving bank of trench, injuring plaintiff. Sullivan v. City of Rome, 86 App. Div. 107. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Fall of bank of dirt on plaintiff during excavation. Banchetti v. Williams & Co., 75 Misc. 262. Motion for new trial denied. Fall of rock during excavation of tunnel. Scott v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 697. Verdict, $1,250. Re- versed. Excavation, Falling Objects Into Falling into excavation, stone quarry. McGrath v. Hughes Co., 189 App. Div. 372. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. 78 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Excavation, Falling Objects Into—Continued Falling rock in quarry causing injury. " Telhanis v. Owens, 137 App. Div. 555. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Workman in excavation injured by car falling into. Evans v. Pearson & Son, 125 App. Div. 666. Verdict, $6,000. Affirmed. Hit by heavy bucket used in excavation. Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. Y.479. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 134 App. Div. 930. Hit by falling chain, a part of elevator used by defendant. Konigsberg v. Davis, 57 Misc. 630. Dismissing complaint, reversed. Collapse of concrete structure while being lowered into. Ward v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 124 App. Div. 22. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of mine roof, it being of dangerous formation. Arras v. Standard Plaster Co., 121 App. Div. 61. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Employee hit by falling stone and earth from side of excavation, injuring employee. Citrone v. O’Rourke Eng. & Cont. Co., 188 N. Y. 339. Judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Fall of stone on employee working in trench. Citrone v. O’Rourke Eng. & Cont. Co., 113 App. Div. 518. Verdict, $4,250. Affirmed. Horse falling into excavation in highway at night, light having ‘been removed. McFeeters v. City of N. ¥., 102 App. Div. 32. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Automobile running into subway, falling into excavation, injur- ing driver. Morris v. Interurban St. R. R., 100 App. Div. 295. Verdict, $6,000. Re- versed. Hit by falling brace supporting sheathing timbers in ditch, in- juring employee. Winters v. Naughton, 91 App. Div. 80. Verdict, $4,500. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 79 Excavation, Falling Objects Into—Continued Struck by falling rock while removing embankment. Van Deruoff v. N. Y. C. & H.R. R. R., 88 App. Div. 418. Verdict, $1,132.56. Reversed. Excavation, Falling Objects From Stone thrown by blast fired by defendant while making excava- tion. Cobb v. United Engineering Co., 191 N. Y. 475. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 118 App. Div. 904. Excavation, in Highway Excavation in public highway and no lights. Gaebler v. Gallo, 198 N. Y. 344. Judgment affirmed. Excavation in street, failure to guard or refill. Tabor v. City of Buffalo, 186 App. Div. 258. Judgment for defendant on verdict, reversed. Excavation in highway, plaintiff injured by wheel of wagon going into excavation. Swift v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 184 App. Div. 1384. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Falling rock in making excavation injuring plaintiff. Caciatore v. Transit Construction Co., 147 App. Div. 676. Verdict $4,000, reversed. Explosion, Blast Blast explosion improperly set off by defective fire apparatus, causing injury. . Riggs v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 134 App. Div. 672. Verdict, $35,000. Affirmed. Premature explosion of blast throwing stone on decedent, electric current having been connected by thunder shower. Boccelli v. North River Stone Co., 183 App. Div. 449. Judgment dismissing complaint. Fall of bank of earth killing employee. Reilly v. Troy Brick Co., 108 App. Div. 108. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Dismissal of complaint. 80 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Explosion, Blast—Continued Hit by flying rock from explosion of blast due to failure to make rules. Dwyer v. Slattery, 118 App. Div. 345. Appeal by defendant from order Supreme Court. Premature explosion in blasting, injuring employee. McBride v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 113 App. Div. 821. Verdict, $3,000. Premature explosion of blast injuring employee. McBride v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 101 App. Div. 448. Judgment for defend- ant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Explosion, Chemicals Explosion of chemicals in bottle causing injury. Buckley v. Garden City Co., 127 App. Div. 52. Verdict, $2,700. Affirmed. Explosion of siphon bottle of aérated water. Torgesen v. Schultz, 192 N. Y. 156. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Explosion of opaque vessel used to compound drugs. Gozzett v. Plaut, 121 App. Div. 518. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Explosion of aérated water bottle causing injury. Bruckel v. Milhau’s Son, 116 App. Div. 832. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Explosion of bottle containing chemicals. Lobasco v. Moxie Nerve Food Co., 127 App. Div. 677. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Explosion of bottle of aérated water while charging. Bruckel v. Milhau’s Son, 145 App. Div. 557. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Dismissal of complaint. . ° Explosion, Dynamite Explosion caused by thawing dynamite over fire. Trotto v. Bellew & Merrett Co., 127 App. Div. 400. Verdict, $11,500. Reversed. Premature explosion of dynamite cartridge, a short fuse being attached. Mahoney v. Cayuga Lake Cement Co., 126 App. Div. 164. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 81 Explosion, Dynamite—Continued Explosion of dynamite in train killing brakeman. Kelly v. D. L. & W. R. R., 192 N. Y. 203. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Damage to property by explosion of dynamite. Murphy »v. City of New York, 128 App. Div. 463. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Second explosion of dynamite after first blast. Riggs v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 202 N. Y. 129. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 134 App. Div. 672. Explosion of dynamite causing injury. Finnigan v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 122 App. Div. 712. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. Shock caused by explosion of dynamite used by contractor. Hall ». N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 488. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Explosion of blast by dynamite injuring attendant of blaster. McGowan v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 148 App. Div. 1. Verdict, $8,000. Reversed. Explosion of dynamite in car on railroad from collision between trains. Kelly v. D. L. & W. R. R., 118 App. Div. 432. Dismissal of: complaint, reversed. Second explosion of dynamite after first explosion in blasting. Andriuszis v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 143 App. Div. 607. Verdict, $22,000. Reversal. Explosion of dynamite stored in public street by contractor. Carpenter v. City of New York, 115 App. Div. 552. Verdict, $6,000. Re- versed. Explosion of dynamite killing intestate employee of city. Crapo v. City of Syracuse, 183 N. Y. 395. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Dynamite explosion by improper packing of the dynamite for the blast.. O’Brien v. Buffalo Furnace Co., 183 N. Y. 317. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. : 82 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Explosion, Dynamite—Continued Explosion of dynamite in rock which plaintiff was breaking, causing injury. Di Stefeno v. Peekskill L. & R. R. Co., 107 App. Div. 293. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Explosion of dynamite in street injuring hotel of abutting owner. Snythe v. City of N. Y., 203 N. Y. 106. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. 128 App. Div. 463, modified. Explosion of dynamite, injuring intestate while working in sewer. Dippolito v. Brown, 148 App. Div. 116. Motion for new trial granted. Explosion, Gas Explosion from gas or electricity. Cohen v. Consolidated Gas Co., 137 App. Div. 213. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Explosion from gas escaping from unclosed pipe. Kenney v. South Shore Natural Gas & Fuel Co., 1384 App. Div. 859. Ver- dict, $16,000. Affirmed. Injury from explosion of gas in manhole. Seager v. Solvay Process Co., 129 App. Div. 813. Reversed. Explosion of gas wrecking room and injuring plaintiff. Mowers v. Municipal Gas Co., 142 App. Div. 169. Verdict, $1,000. Re- versed. Explosion of gas in subway, cause not known. Robinson v. Empire Cit Subway Co., 53 Misc. 596. Appeal from judgment City Court, affirmed. Gas explosion while inserting valve in gas main without rubber guards. Cadigan v. Glens Falls Gas & E. L. Co., 112 App. Div. 751. Judgment for defendant reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Acetylene gas generator exploding due to gas ignited by gas jet. Razey v. Colt Co., 106 App: Div. 103. Verdict, $500. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 83 Explosion, Gas—Continued Explosion of gasoline torch injuring employee repairing boiler. Purcell v. Hoffman House, 97 App. Div. 307. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Explosion of gas in cellar of tenement injuring tenant. King v. Consolidated Gas Co., 90 App. Div. 166. Verdict, $650. Reversed. Explosion of gas in still. Anderson v. Casey Co., 136 App. Div. 361. Verdict, $6,000. Affirmed. Explosion, Steam Boilers Explosion of defective boiler, failure to inspect. McMahon ». Lehigh Valley, 1388 App. Div. 628. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Explosion of steam boiler because of defective construction, scalding plaintiff. Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co., 125 App. Div. 69. Verdict, $6,500. Affirmed. Explosion of boiler not properly tested. Ware v. Ithaca St. R. R. Co., 125 App. Div. 323. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Explosion of steam boiler caused by long use. O’Doherty v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co. et al., 113 App. Div. 636. Verdict, $19,875. Reversed. Explosion of hot water boiler caused by rusty hoops causing injury. Muller v. Oakes Mfg. Co., 113 App. Div. 689. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Explosion of boiler of scow causing injury. O’Doherty v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 184 App. Div. 298. Verdict, $20,000. Reduced to $15,000 and affirmed. Explosion of locomotive boiler injuring fireman. Spaeth v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 819. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Explosion of steam pipe caused by defect in the metal. Koehler v. N. Y. Steam Co., 183 N. Y. 1. Judgment for defendant, reversed. 84 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Explosion, Steam Boilers—Continued Explosion of steam boiler of city pumping station killing fire- man and engineer. Nelson v. City of N. Y., 101 App. Div. 18. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed. Explosion by defective blow off appliance attached to steam boiler. , Goodhines v. Chase, 100 App. Div. 87. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Explosion of steam pipe caused by defective connection from long use. Krueger v. Bartholomay Brewing Co., 94 App. Div. 58. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Explosion of steam and water in tank from defective condition in tank. Franck v. American Tartar Co., 91 App. Div. 571. Verdict, $6,500. Af- firmed. Explosion of fire box of locomotive from quantity of water com- ing suddenly in contact therewith. Marcean v. Rutland R. R. Co., 74 Misc. 635. Verdict for plaintiff. Motion to set aside verdict denied Explosion, Miscellaneous Explosion of peanut roaster causing injury. Frank v. Warsaw, 198 N. Y. 463. Verdict, $10,000. Judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Affirming 129 App. Div. 936. Explosion of fire works caused while constructing fire works de- vice. - Paul v. Consolidated Fireworks Co., 183 App. Div. 310. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Explosion of fire works in exhibition permitted by city. City of N. Y. v. Hearst, 142 App. Div. 343. Dismissal of complaint, re- versed. Fire works bomb exploded injuring pedestrian. DeAgramonte v. City of Mt. Vernon, 123 App. Div. 717. Verdict, $5,500. Affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 85 Explosion, Miscellaneous—Continued Explosion of coffee urn resulting in injuries. Statler v. Ray Manufacturing Co., 195 N. Y. 478. Reversed. Child injured by explosion of fire arms. Paul v. Consolidated Fireworks Co., 141 App. Div. 776. Affirmance of judgment for plaintiff, reversing 125 App. Div. 69. Explosion of pipe injuring plaintiff. Haley v. Solvay Process Co., 127 App. Div. 753. Verdict, $7,948. Affirmed. Explosion; torpedo found on railroad track. Holmes v. D. & H. Co., 128 App. Div. 24. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Explosion in starch factory resulting in fire burning plaintiff. Arnold v. National Starch Co., 121 App. Div. 890. Verdict, $4,112.03. Reversal. Explosion in mill caused from the igniting of dust in bin. Sticht v. Buffalo Cereal Co., 116 App. Div. 632. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Explosion of water gauge causing glass splinters to hit plaintiff in eye. Healy v. Buffalo Rochester & Pittsburg R. R., 111 App. Div. 618. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Explosion of kettle of melting pitch injuring plaintiff. Matzing v. Excelsior Brewing Co., 107 App. Div. 275. Judgment for de- fendant reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Explosion in blast furnace operated in improper manner. Bannon v. Buffalo Union Furnace Co., 109 App. Div. 324. County Court judgment for defendant affirmed. Explosion while pouring molten metal into ingot mold, mold being damp. Haslin v. National Foundry Co., 106 App. Div. 152. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Explosion of defective adjuster in paper mill. Hunt v. Dexter Sulphite Pulp & Paper Co., 100 App. Div. 119. Verdict, $8,800. Affirmed. 86 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Explosion, Miscellaneous—Continued Explosion of oil while being unloaded. Cooper v. Fidelity Development Co., 146 App. Div. 637. Express Company Horse injured in shipment by express on railroad. Ames v. Fargo, 114 App. Div. 666. Supreme Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Falls, In and From Buildings Falling over obstacle in hallway unlighted. Aldrich v. Laul, 126 App. Div. 427. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Falling from tower being demolished. Kelly v. Battle Island Paper Co., 122 App. Div. 185. Verdict, $1,000. ‘Reversed. Fall through hatchway while examining building for repairs. Kenney v. Brooklyn Bridge Stores Co., 121 App. Div. 684. Verdict, $5,500. Order setting aside verdict affirmed. Fall of ceiling in school room injuring pupil. Wahrman v. Board of Education, 187 N. Y. 331. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Affirming, 111 App. Div. 345. Fall of beam from awning under which plaintiff was working. Meaney v. Harowitz, 115 App. Div. 572. Judgment Municipal Court, re- versed. Fall from bridge temporarily constructed over excavation in street. ° Bell v. City of N. Y., 114 App: Div. 22. Motion for new trial denied. Order for dismissal of complaint. Fall of signboard standing outside of building under construction. Bowden v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, 113 App. Div. 738. Verdict Ist $1,250, 2nd $500. Reversed. Fall of signboard from roof. San Filippo v. American Bill Posting Co., 112 App. Div. 395. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 87 Falls, In and From Buildings—Continued Fall of slat from roof causing injury. Schwartz v. Monday, 49 Misc. 527. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall of ceiling in school room injuring pupil. Wahrman v. City of N. Y. & Board of Education, 111 App. Div. 345. Ver. dict, $4,000. Affirmed. Fall of ceiling in kitchen causing injury. Walker v. Gleason, 109 App. Div. 791. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall of door on dock injuring plaintiff. Oats v. N. Y. Dock Co., 109 App. Div. 841. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Fall of trap door carrying down plaintiff standing upon it. Bovee v. International Paper Co., 108 App. Div. 94. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Fall of door enclosing shed on dock, injuring plaintiff. Oats v. N. Y. Dock Co., 99 App. Div. 487. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Fall of iron scaffold caused by breaking of jack owing to dry rotten timber, throwing plaintiff off of scaffold. Meehan »v. Atlas Safe Moving Co., 94 App. Div. 306. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Fall of window sash while plaintiff was lowering upper part thereof. Burke v. Frenkel, 95 App. Div. 89. Order denying defendant’s motion for bill of particulars. Reversed. Fall of sign over sidewalk injuring pedestrian. Leary v. City of Yonkers, 95 App. Div. 126. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Fall while washing window owing to absence of stop on upper | sash. Smith v. Donnelly, 93 App. Div. 569. Verdict, $12,500. Reversed. Fall in hallway by catching foot in covering on floor of hallway. Keating v. Mott, 92 App. Div. 156. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. 88 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Falls, In and From Buildings—Continued Fall of chimney caused by connecting wire being struck by boom of derrick. Leeds v. N. Y. Telephone Co., 178 N. Y. 118. Judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. Fall through door in cupola on workman at bottom of shaft. Ehrenfried v. Lackawanna Iron & G. Co., 89 App. Div. 130. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Dismissal of complaint. Fall of board insecurely nailed to window for raising merchandise injuring employee. Lynch v. Bush Co., (Limited), 89 App. Div. 286. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Fall of brick chimney injuring plaintiff. Travers v. Murray, 87 App. Div. 552. Verdict, $1,800. Affirmed Falling into water tank by tipping of cover resulting in injuries. Sheehan v. Standard Gas Light Co., 87 App. Div. 174. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Fall of brick from wall in building construction. Norman v. Dowd, 86 App. Div. 248. Affirmed. Setting aside verdict Municipal Court for defendant. Falling window on railroad platform. Waldman v. Brooklyn Union Elevated R. R. Co., 186 App. Div. 376. Ap- peal from Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Falling of grating into cellar, injury from. Kelly v. Hudson Companies, 65 Misc. 574. City Court judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. e Fall of child from window during temporary absence of attendant in hospital. Cunningham »v. Sheltering Arms, 135 App. Div. 178. Order setting aside verdict, affirmed. Verdict, $2,000. Fall of wheel barrow loaded falling from runway injuring em- ployee. Fagan v. Wells Bros. Co., 63 Misc. 337. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 89 Falls, In and From Buildings—Continued Defective wall falling into cellar. Silverman v. Binder, 130 App. Div. 581. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Fall of roof being removed in building construction. ’ Ferrick v. Eidlitz, 195 N. Y. 248. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Re- versing 123 App. Div. 587. Fall through hole in building under construction. Burke v. Cowen & Co., 130 App. Div. 207. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Fall from telephone pole causing injury to lineman. LaDuke v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 136 App. Div. 136. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. Fall of lineman from telephone pole. Tweed v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 130 App. Div. 231. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Fall from plank on floor frame of building by tipping of plank while passing over with material. Nixon v. Thompson Starrett Co.,°131 App. Div. 152. Verdict, $3,500. Affirmed. Fall of brick from top of building hitting pedestrian on street causing injury. Hughes v. Harbor & Suburban Bldg. & Saving Association, 131 App. Div. 185. Verdict, $40,000. Affirmed. Fall of janitor of building passing over plank left by owner in the building. Schollhamer v. Hamburger, 63 Misc. 309. Dismissal of complaint. Fall of decedent standing on stone coping. Wittgren v. Wells Bros. & Co., 141 App. Div. 693. Verdict, $10,000. Re- versed. Falling roof injuring employee. Tanne v. U. S. Gypsum Co., 194 N. Y. 88. Reversing 126 App. Div. 244. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall of stairway in landing causing injury. Peters v. Kelly, 129 App. Div. 290. Dismissing complaint, reversal. 90 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Falls, In and From Buildings—Continued Falling from cross arm of electric light pulley, breaking under weight. Johnson v. Syracuse Lighting Co., 193 N. Y. 592. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 122 App. Div. 895. Death of brick layer in laying wall in course of construction. Ripp v. Fuchs, 129 App. Div. 321. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Falling through opening between girders in building. MeNeil v. Bottsford-Dickinson Co., 128 App. Div. 544. ' Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall of hammer from building causing injury. Zettel v. Taylor, 128 App. Div. 251. Verdict, $500. Affirmed. Fall from tipping of plank in walk in building under construction. Eldridge v. Terry & Tench Co., 145 App. Div. 560. Verdict, $12,000. Re- versed. Falling into unguarded machine in dimly lighted passageway. Fitzgerald v. Newton Falls Paper Co., 204 N. Y. 184. Judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Reversing, 139 App. Div. 922. Fall of plank in building under construction, shoring removed. Chinn v. Forro Construction Co., 148 App. Div. 368. Verdict, $1,200. Affirmed. Fall from roof of building, carried down by strip of paper on which plaintiff was sitting. Davis v. Gas Engine & Power Co., 148 App. Div. 791. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Fall of window glass*injuring pedestrian on street. Pearson v. Ehrick, 148 App. Div. 680. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Falls Into Excavations, Depressions or Openings Falling into tank of hot water in floor of cellar. Ward »v. Hill, 125 App. Div. 587. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Falling into pit of water receiving injury. Kalisher ». Browning, King & Co., 139 App. Div. 637. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 91 Falls Into Excavations, Depressions or Openings—Continued Falling through open space in railroad track. Judgment for plaintiff reversed. Dixon». N. Y.0.& W. R. R., 198 N. Y. 58. Reversing, 132 App. Div. 944. Falling into pit while acting under unauthorized directions of another employee. Kiernan v. Gutta Percha & Rubber Mfg. Co., 134 App. Div. 192. Verdict, $25,000. Reversed. Falling into vat of boiling liquid while standing on slats above the vat. Marsen v. Nichols Copper Co., 134 App. Div. 294. Verdict, $2,000. Re- versed. Falling into area-way on an adjoining land, no guards to area- way. Kleinberg v. Schween, 134 App. Div. 493. Order denying motion to dis- miss complaint, reversed. Appeal from order. Falling in tunnel excavation by slipping on slab forming part of tunnel covering. Powers v. 1st Nat. Bank of Amenia, 133 App. Div. 257. Verdict, $512. Reversed. Fall into pit caused by being hit by bucket being lowered for hoisting purposes. Simpson v. Foundation Company, 132 App. Div. 375. Verdict, $25,000. Reversed. Falling into hole near railroad track on alighting from train, no warning being given. Lusk v. Peck, 132 App. Div. 426. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Accidentally falling into flue after passing the place where em- ployee was to work. Farley v. White Engineering Co., 131 App. Div. 228. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Falling into trench by breaking plank on which plaintiff was standing. Wynne v. Continental Asphalt Paving Co., 61 Misc. 94. Appeal from Municipal Court judgment, reversed. 92 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Falls Into Excavations, Depressions or Openings—Continued Fall by stepping into defective manhole. Casey v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 86. Verdict, $7,500. Affirmed. Fall into gulley or trench across sidewalk. Purdy v. City of N. Y., 126 App. Div. 320. Dismissal of complaint, re- versed. Fall of workman into pit when reporting for work in building under construction. Bausert v. Thompson-Starrett Co., 126 App. Div. 332. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Falling into vat while crossing floor in night time. Krug v. American Sugar Refining Co., 120 App. Div. 537. Verdict, $2,250. Reversed. Falling into excavation near walk. Breen v. Gill, 125 App. Div. 642. Dismissing complaint on pleading, re- versed. Falling into hopper of furnace, overcome by gas. Stenger v. Buffalo, Union Furnace Co., 109 App. Div. 183. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Falling into unguarded ash pit while proceeding through cellar- way. Withers v. Brooklyn Real Estate Exchange, 106 App. Div. 255. Verdict — $900. Affirmed. Falling into well through decayed cover. Forlick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 45 Mise. 452. Motion to direct verdict. Fall to bottom of minittg shaft from breaking of cable. Owen v. Retsof Mining Co., 102 App. Div. 130. Verdict, $6,000. Re- versed. Fall of tenant by stepping on perforated drain cover, support- ing earth being washed away. Garrett v. Somerville, 98 App. Div. 206. Verdict, $4,750. Affirmed. Falling into pulp digester. Makoski v. Union B. & P. Co., 186 App. Div. 110. Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 93 Falls Into Excavations, Depressions or Openings—Continued Falling into hole in floor of cement mill. Bushtis v. Catskill Cement Co., 128 App. Div. 780. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmed. ‘ Fall through unguarded hole in floor, plank being removed. Heffron v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 121 App. Div. 35. Appeal by plaintiff, from order of Supreme Court. Fall of employee in excavation by fellow employee catching hold of him. Filppone v. Reisenburger, 185 App. Div. 707. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Falling into hatchway by employee, opened in his absence. Glennon v. Star Co., 180 App. Div. 491. Judgment dismissing complaint, reversed. Falling into sluice way by dizziness caused by running water, under control of defendant. Carroll v. State of N. Y., 73 Misc. 516. Claim of claimant awarded. Falls from Cars, Trains and Vehicles Fall of box while being loaded on vehicle by plaintiff. Cannon v. Fargo, 138 App. Div. 20. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Falling under moving train on railroad. Kemp v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 1385 App. Div. 773. Verdict, $3,500. Re- versed. . Fall from moving railroad train by being pushed off by conductor. Dwyer v. N. Y. C. R. R., 186 App. Div. 87. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Railroad employee, conductor falling from platform of backing train by sudden stopping of train. Jones v. N. Y. C. & H.-R. R. R., 134 App. Div. 39. Judgment for defend- ant on verdict, reversed. Non-suit. Falling from street car by sudden starting of car when attempting to get off. Walsh v. Nassau Electric R. R., 133 App. Div. 144. Municipal Court judg- ment for plaintiff, reversed. 94 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Falls from Cars, Trains and Vehicles—Continued Fall of passenger when alighting from car by sudden starting of car. Brown v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 182 App. Div. 276. Verdict, $500. Affirmed. Fall from wagon of snow shoveler by sudden starting of horse. Pactor v. City of N. Y., 182 App. Div. 373. Dismissal of complaint, af- firmed. Fall from platform of car by sudden starting of car. Berkowsky v. N. Y. City R. R., 127 App. Div. 544. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Passenger falling from car and struck by express truck. Gray v. Weir, 113 App. Div. 479. Judgment for defendant, reversal. Fall of passenger from street car by opening of platform gate against which passenger was leaning. Greer v. Union R. R. Co., 50 Misc. 560. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall from wagon driven across railroad track while engine ap- proaching. Milliman v. N. Y¥. C. & H. R. R. R., 109 App. Div. 189. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Fall of freight from car caused by collision, injuring truckman loading truck. Fisher v. N. Y. Dock Co., 91 App. Div. 526. Motion for new trial by plain- tiff granted. 7 Fall of trolley pole of car, the guide wheel having fallen out. injuring conductor. Lynch v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 89 App. Div. 217. Verdict, $4,200. Af- firmed. ‘ Falling through hole in tailboard of wagon which plaintiff was driving. Chernick v. Independent American Ice Cream Co., 147 App. Div. 767. Verdict, $300. Municipal Court judgment reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 95 Falls from Breaks Fall from breaking of rope while giving spectacular performance on stage. Conyes v. Oceanic: Amusement Co., 202 N. Y. 408. Appeal from judgment appellate division, reversed. Thrown to ground by breaking of rail to veranda while leaning against it. Maslin v. Childs, 146 App. Div. 174. Motion for new trial granted. Falls in Excavation of Embankment Fall of stone from embankment causing death to workman. Reris v. Haines, 134 App. Div. 402. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of clay bank while being undermined as directed by super- intendent. Palin v. Cary Brick Co., 133 App. Div. 483. Dismissal of complaint, re- versed. Fall of rock loosened after blast. Henry v. Hudson & Manhattan R. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 140. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Reversing, 139 App. Div. 672. Fall of rock from tunnel excavation. Toppi v. McDonald, 128 App. Div. 443. Verdict, $4,000. Affirmed. Falling rock in tunnel injuring workman. Martin v. Degnon Contracting Co., 127 App. Div. 85. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmed. Fall of embankment causing death of employee. Reilly v. Troy Brick Co., 125 App. Div. 326. Verdict, $2,200. Reversed. Fall of frozen earth while making excavation. Josupeet v. City of Niagara Falls, 70 Misc. 638. Motion for new trial de- nied. Fall of mine roof due to dangerous formation. Arras v. Standard Plaster Co., 121 App. Div. 61. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. ; Fall of material from roof of subway being raised. Ortalans v. Degnon Contracting Co., 120 App. Div. 59. Appeal from order of appellate division, reversed. 96 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Falls in Excavation of Embankment—Continued Fall of stone from roof of tunnel killing intestate. Bertolami v. United Engineering & Cont. Co., 120 App. Div. 192. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Fall of stone on employee working in trench. Citrone v. O’Rourke Engineering & Construction Co., 113 App. Div. 518. Verdict, $4,250. Affirmed. Fall of clay bank at foot of which plaintiff was working. Reilly v. Troy Brick Co., 184 N. ¥. 399. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Falling brace supporting sheathing timbers in ditch injuring employee. Winters v. Naughton, 91 App. Div. 80. Verdict, $4,500. Reversed. Falling rock injuring employee removing embankment. Van Derhoff v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 88 App. Div. 418. Verdict, $1,132.56. Reversed. Falls in and About Elevators and Cables Fall of freight elevator. Krause v. Gair Co., 186 App. Div. 357. Exceptions on dismissal of com- plaint, sustained. Falling in eievator shaft. Goldberg v. Herman, 136 App. Div. 532. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Falling down elevator shaft causing injury. Martin v. Cornell, 136 App. Div. 585. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of elevator by fgilure to guard or repair. Stokes v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 134 App. Div. 363. Dismissal of com- plaint reversed. Employee falling while boarding elevator and caught in auto- matic gate. - Knickerbocker v. General R. R. Signal Co., 133 App. Div. 787. Verdict $700. Reversed. Fall from elevator when putting truck on elevator platform. Nichols v. Searle Mnfg. Co., 184 App. Div. 62. Verdict $5,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 97 Falls in and About Elévators and Cables—Continued Falling down elevator shaft when obeying foreman’s instructions. Hillyer v. Laight St. Stores Co., 133 App. Div. 125. Verdict, $4,000. Af- firmed. Fall of person standing on elevator caused by steel keys holding drum shirring off, allowing drum to turn on shaft. Scott v. Nauss Bros. Co., 141 App. Div. 255. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Fall of door of elevator by counter weight breaking: causing movement of car and the door to fall. Ryan v. Courtland Carriage Goods Co., 183 App. Div. 467. Verdict, $1,500. Reversal. Fall by stepping into elevator shaft, a defective latch on door. Wendell v. Leo, 195 N. Y. 76. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 123 App. Div. 912. Fall of broken wheel from elevator being repaired. Kahner v. Otis Elevator Co., 96 App. Div. 169. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed. Fall down elevator shaft, no proof as to how accident happened. Lowry v. Anderson, 96 App. Div. 465. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Falling down elevator shaft by sudden starting of hoist. Boyle v. McMulty Bros., 129 App. Div. 412. Verdict, $5,000. Order setting aside verdict, reversed. Fall of freight elevator on which plaintiff was riding. Young v. Mason Stable Co., 198 N. Y. 188. Dismissal of complaint, af- firmed. Fall of elevator, with passenger, door open as invitation to enter. Kaplan v. Lyons Building & Operating Co., 61 Misc. 315. Reversal. Materials falling from hoist injuring plaintiff. Schultz v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 127 App. Div. 305. Verdict, $275. Reversed. Fall of policeman down elevator shaft, left unguarded by oc- cupant of building. Racine v. Morris, 201 N. Y. 240. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Affirm- ing, 186 App. Div. 469. 98 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Falls in and About Elevators and Cables—Continued Falling down elevator shaft by starting of elevator. Cunningham v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. Co., 125 App. Div. 688. Verdict, $40,000. Affirmed. Fall of elevator by breaking cable on engineer’s failure to stop. Bowers v. Norwich Pharmacal Co., 124 App. Div. 31. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. , Falling from cable for carrying hod by contractor. Goldstein v. Wolkenburg, 54 Misc. 545. Judgment Municipal Court, re- versed. Fall of bucket in mine elevator, caused by defective cable. Owen v. Retsof Mining Co., 119 App. Div. 618. Verdict, $4,500. Motion for new trial denied. Fall of dumb waiter caused by defect of alleged rope. Muller v. Vesell, 117 App. Div. 72. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Fall inside elevator well when attempting to leave grounds in unusual manner. Gilfillan v. German Hospital & Dispensary in N. Y., 115 App. Div. 48. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall down unguarded shaft of elevator used in building con- struction. Kiernan v. Hidlitz, 115 App. Div. 141. Verdict, $6,250. Reversed. Fall of dumb waiter caused by breaking rope. Russo v. McLaughlin, 51 Misc. 34. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. e Fall down elevator shaft from walking into open shaft in day- time. Fink v. Hartog & Beinhauer Candy Co., 112 App. Div. 387. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. Fall through elevator opening between basements, no gates or guards provided. Washington v. Episcopal Church of St. Peters, 111 App. Div. 402. Verdict, $900. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 99 Falls in and About Elevators and Cables—Continued Fall of loaded tub lifted by cable injuring plaintiff. McMullen v. City of N. Y., 110 App. Div. 117. Verdict, $4,000. Affirmed. Fall down unguarded elevator shaft. Kiernan »v. Eidlitz, 109 App. Div. 726. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall down elevator shaft caused by sudden stopping of elevator. Conroy v. Acken, 110 App. Div. 48. Verdict, $12,000. Reversed. Fall down-elevator shaft at night by stumbling into unguarded opening. Rooney v. Brogan Construction Co., 107 App. Div. 258. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Fall down elevator shaft by giving way of iron support. Hartman »v. Clark, 104 App. Div. 62. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Fall of pipes being hoisted in elevator striking employee in pub- lic street. Walsh v. Riesenberg, 94 App. Div. 466. Setting aside verdict. Fall down elevator shaft caused by sudden lowering of elevator being loaded. Leary v. City of Yonkers, 95 App. Div. 116. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Fall of pipes raised in elevator through window striking person in street. Connor v. Koch, 89 App. Div. 38. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. Walking through unlighted hall and falling down elevator shaft. Rohrbacher »v. Gillig et al., 203 N. Y.413. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Fall of bundle of iron pipe from elevator in building. Walsh »v. Riesenberg et al. (Mem.), 110 App. Div. 19. Verdict, $15,000. Reversed. Falls in Grain Elevators ; Falling and sliding on to buckets in grain elevator. Lynch v. American Linseed Co., 122 App. Div. 428. Verdict, $20,000. Affirmed. 100 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Falls in Grain Elevators—Continued Falling into machine while extracting fiber from knives. McGrath v. Fibre Conduit Co., 122 App. Div. 424. Verdict, $3,000. Re- versed. 3 Fall into buckets of grain elevator carried down by grain, no cuards provided. Lynch v. American Linseed Co., 1138 App. Div. 502. Judgment for defend- ant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Falls from Ladders, Trees, etc. Fall from ladder causing injury. Wynn v. Carlin, 135 App. Div. 795. Non-suit, affirmed. Fall of ladder by breaking of wire against which it was placed for painting purposes. Gardner v. Westinghouse Elec. & Gen. Mfg. Co., 141 App. Div. 5. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Fall by skid slipping, no cleat attached. Tiedgen v. National Elevator Co., 130 App. Div. 504. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall of ladder caught in revolving pulley. Nash v. Crane Co., 141 App. Div. 665. Verdict, $550. Reversed. Fall of tree caused by blasting injuring plaintiff. Feola v. Orange Co. Road Construction Co., 129 App. Div. 485. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall from ladder between floors in building by turning of a rung. Dougherty »v. Weeks & Son, 126 App. Div. 786. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. ‘. Fall from step ladder while painting Kennedy v. N. Y. Telephone Co., 125 App. Div. 846. Verdict, $9,000. Reversed. Falling from tree while dodging swinging limb attached to rope. Lowrey v. Huntington L. & P. Co., 121 App. Div. 245. Judgment for de- fendant, affirmed. Dismissal of complaint. Fall from ladder which was struck by passing tram car. Date v. N. Y. Glucose Co., 114 App. Div. 789. Verdict, $22,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 101 Falls from Ladders, Trees, etc.—Continued Fall of ladder on which plaintiff was standing causing injury. McNamara v. City of N. Y., 143 App. Div. 939. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Falls, Falling Objects Fall of roof in tunnel by removal of iron column. Bertolami v. United Engineering & Cont. Co., 125 App. Div. 584. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. Falling piece of iron hitting workman in basement. O’Rourke v. Guy B. Waite Co., 125 App. Div. 825. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Brick falling through chute causing injury. Devine v. Alphons Custodis Chimney Const. Co., 126 App. Div. 7. Dis- missal of complaint, affirmed. Fall of weight used for drawing block and tackle by breaking of rope. Dougherty v. Westinghouse ef al., 124 App. Div. 895. Judgment for plain- tiff affirmed. Fall of wrench injuring workman. ‘Walsh v. Continental Iron Works, 124 App. Div. 894. Judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Fall of sign from front of building. McNulty v. Ludwig & Co., 125 App. Div. 291. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Fall of merchandise on customer in store. Higgins v. Ruppert, 124 App. Div. 530. Judgment Municipal Court for defendant, reversed. Fall of hook uncoupled from hoisting tackle. Desmond »v. Foundation Co., 142 App. Div. 537. Verdict, $7,000. Reversed. Fall of bucket caused by loosened cable. Hartman v. Berlin & Jones Envelope Co., 71 Mise. 30. Motion for new trial denied. Sign falling from 5th story striking pedestrian. Feder v. Friedman, 71 Misc. 134. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. 102 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Falls, Falling Objects—Continued Hit by falling chain as part of elevator. Konigsberg v. Davis, 57 Misc. 630. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of tile through opening in floor. Finnegan v. Robinson Co., 124 App. Div. 117. Verdict, $9,000. Reversed. Falling of railroad tie from bundle held by defective hook. Wack v. Tobin, 122 App. Div. 704. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Fall of bucket caused by defective hook. Carney v. Minnesota Dock Co., 191 N. Y. 301. Judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. Reversing 115 App. Div. 820. Fall of plank from bridge under construction hitting employee beneath on way from work. Lowman »v. Pa. Steel Co., 142 App. Div. 891. Judgment for plaintiff, af- firmed. Fall of material during construction of wall of building, causing injury. Kupfersmith v. Hopper & Sons, 122 App. Div. 31. Verdict, $18,000. Re- versed. Fall and slipping of metal girder injuring plaintiff’s leg. Olcott v. Passaic Steel Co., 122 App. Div. 90. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Fall of hoisting vessel by lug of vessel not properly placed in hook. : Wren v. Kennedy Valve Mfg. Co., 122 App. Div. 289. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall of article from upper story of building under construction. Wood v. Burke & Sons#121 App. Div. 542. Judgment Municipal Court for plaintiff, reversed. Fall of stone from hoisting dog injuring employee. . McCarthy v. Norcross Bros. Co., 121 App. Div. 775. Verdict, $6,500. Reversed. Fall of iron flask lowered by hand because too heavy to hold, injuring plaintiff. Ozogar v. Pierce Butler & Pierce Mfg. Co., 55 Misc. 579. ‘Motion to set aside non-suit granted. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 103 Falls, Falling Objects—Continued Fall of pane of glass injuring plaintiff. Rockstrow v. Astoria Marble Co., 121 App. Div. 144. Judgment Municipal Court reversed. Fall of iron plates injuring plaintiff because of failure to obey signals. Famularo v. Oil Well Supply Co., 56 Misc. 75. Motion for non-suit denied. Fall of brick from scaffold injuring plaintiff working beneath. Choyce v. Hopper & Sons, 120 App. Div. 177. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Fall of electric lamp in store injuring employee. Fish v. Waverly E. L. & Power Co., 189 N. Y. 336. Judgment for defendant on non-suit, reversed. Reversing 108 App. Div. 456. Fall of material from bucket injuring plaintiff. Lawrence v. Stanley Hod Elevator Co., 55 Misc. 257. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff reversed. Fall of brick from building under construction injuring employee of independent contractor. Hashagen v. Schafer, 54. Misc. 236. Judgment for plaintiff Municipal Court, reversed. Fall of brick from scaffold knocked off by co-employee. Willis v. Thompson-Starrett Co., 54 Misc. 238. Judgment for plaintiff Municipal Court, reversed. Fall of pipe striking plaintiff on head causing injury. Leahy v. Gaylord & Eitapence Co., 117 App. Div. 316. Verdict, $1,457. Reversed. Fall of brick in building striking employee. Graham v. Van Hauten, 53 Misc. 643. Judgment for plaintiff Municipal Court, affirmed. Fall of iron beams from improper operation of hoisting derrick. Thompson v. Post & McCord, 143 App. Div. 394. Verdict, $2,720. Re- versed. Fall or blowing down of billboard on roof of building injuring plaintiff. ; Filippo v. American Bill Posting Co., 188 N. Y. 514. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmed. 104 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Falls, Falling Objects—Continued Fall of pile of lumber on plaintiff while taking lumber from pile and loading it on truck. Nigro v. Willson, 50 Misc. 656. Verdict, $250. Reversed. Fall of pole holding clothes line due to rottenness of pole, caus- ing injury. Hanselman v. Broad, 113 App. Div. 447. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Fall of cover on chute while fellow servant attempting to put it on chute. Brust v. Perkins Co., 118 App. Div. 633. Verdict, $350. Reversed. Hit by falling object dropped or thrown by defendant’s employees through opening in floor. Halsch v. J. B. & J. M. Cornell, 49 Misc. 525. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall of fare register in railroad car hitting plaintiff. Weir v. Union R. R. Co. of N. Y. City, 112 App. Div. 109. Order granting new trial reversed. Fall of iron beam from incorrect signal for hoisting being given, injuring plaintiff. Abrahamson v. Gen. Supply & Const. Co., 112 App. Div. 318. Verdict, $300. Reversed. Fall of iron bolt from scaffold over that on which plaintiff stood, injuring plaintiff. Miller v. Levering & Garrigues Co., 144 Ape Div. 12. Supreme Court order of appellate term reversed. Fall of beam placed on edge of gallery above which intestate worked. Barsalou v. Peirce, 109 App. Div. 506. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Fall of boiler front in course of removal causing death of in- testate. Faith v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 109 App. Div. 222. Non-suit, reversed. Fall of battering ram causing injury to licensee. McDonough v. James Reilly Repair & Supply Co., 47 Misc. 109. Judg- ment for plaintiff reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 105 Falls, Falling Objects—Continued Fall of iron beams in a pile, catching plaintiff’s foot causing in- jury, improperly piled. Weizinger v. Erie R. R. Co., 106 App. Div. 411. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Fall of stone injuring decedent. Moscarello v. Haines, 130 App. Div. 135. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Falling hammer of defective machine causing injury. Staskowski v. Standard Oil Co., 127 App. Div. 17. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of beam in pile of lumber near side walk causing injury to boy in street. Snitten v. Brown, 52 Misc. 569. Judgment dismissing complaint, reversed. Fall of beer keg on plaintiff’s hand by slacking of elevator chains. Muhlmeyer v. Koehler & Co., 51 Misc. 651. City Court judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Fall of brick from building under construction injuring plaintiff. Koch v. Zimmerman, 85 App. Div. 370. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall of plank used by sub-contractor in painting viaduct. McNamara v. City of N. Y., 144 App. Div. 504. Verdict, $12,500. Reversed. Fall of printing forms on pressman doing injury. Faha v. Wynkoop Hallenbeck & Crawford & Co., 72 Misc. 391. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff. Fall of window frames placed on sidewalk injuring plaintiff. Sukert v. Halperin, 146 App. Div. 338. Verdict, $300. Reversed. Fall of bale of hay from car, on door being opened and injuring plaintiff. Lewis v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R., 146 App. Div. 250. Verdict, $2,000. Re- versed. Fall of timber when being raised by improper appliances. Wells v. Westinghouse, Church & Kerr Co., 147 App. Div. 155. Verdict, $8,000. Reversed. Plank thrown from bridge over canal injuring plaintiff. Spencer v. State of New York, 110 App. Div. 585. , Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. 106 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Falls, Falling Objects—Continued Fall of bucket of steam shovel caused by fellow servant hitting lever, while adjusting a rope. Impellizzieri v. Cranford, 148 App. Div. 758. Verdict, $100. Reversed. Fall of scantling used by defendant’s employees above place where plaintiff was employed. ’ Kain v. Roebling Cons. Co., 72 Misc. 34. Judgment for defendant reversed Fall of coal discharged from bin by fellow employee. Burns v. Palmer, 107 App. Div. 321. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Fall of sand bucket caused by rope pulling from socket injuring plaintiff. McMullen v. City of N. Y., 104 App. Div. 337. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Fall of plate of bank vault not properly secured injuring plain- tiff. Dolan v. Herring, Hall, Marvin Safe Co., 105 App. Div. 366. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall of flag poles striking intestate on head, causing death. McCarthy v. Packard Co., 105 App. Div. 436. Demurrer by plaintiff over- ruled, affirmed. Fall of milk can by breaking of handle injuring employee. Schapiro v. Levy, 101 App. Div. 444. Verdict, $950. Reversed. Fall of barrel of oil lowered to employee by co-servant without signals. Gillen v. McAllister, 97 App. Div. 310. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Dismissal of complaint. Fall of head board oft folding bed causing injury. Cox v. Mason, 89 App. Div. 219. Dismissal of complaint, judgment for defendant, reversed. Fall of block of wood injuring plaintiff. Peet v. Remington & Son, 86 App. Div. 101. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Falls from Scaffolds, Platform and Bridge Fall from breaking of plank on which employee stood. Lewis v. Gehlen, 136 App. Div. 855. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 107 Falls from Scaffolds, Platform and Bridge—Continued Falling of painter’s scaffold, injury from. Mehler v. Fisch, 65 Misc. 549. City Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Falling plank in tunnel, injury from. Covit v. Tucker Elec. Const. Co., 65 Misc. 567. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Scaffold falling, causing injury, defective blocking. Hammond v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 136 App. Div. 100. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Fall from bridge causing death. Brady v. Pa. Steel Co. 184 App. Div. 372. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. Falling from plank while wheeling dirt in the night time, by plank tilting. Trentacoste v. Cronin, 132 App. Div. 907. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall by breaking of rope holding scaffold while plaintiff was painting building. Gruner v. The Texas Company, 133 App. Div. 413. Verdict, $3,000. Af- firmed. Fall on crossing bridge by catching heel in plank on the most used side of bridge. Hynes v. State of N. Y., 63 Misc. 592. Court of Claims; claim dismissed. Fall by defective scaffold plank breaking, throwing plaintiff to the floor. Caddy v. Interborough R. T. Co., 195 N. Y. 415. Dismissal of complaint. Judgment for defendant reversed; affirming, 125 App. Div. 681. Fall from scaffold in building chimney by failure to supply suffi- cient material to build proper scaffold. Quigg v. Post & McCord, 131 App. Div. 155. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. Fall by breaking of board used as scaffold. Convney v. Finn, 130 App. Div. 440. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Fall while passing down plank runway by breaking of plank. Petrie v. Small Realty Co., 141 App. Div. 681. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff. 108 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Falls from Scaffolds, Platform and Bridge—Continued Fall from scaffold by breaking plank. Warren v. Post & McCord, 128 App. Div. 572. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Fall caused by defective scaffold. Tracey v. Williams, 127 App. Div. 126. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of scaffold for unexplained reason throwing plaintiff. Schmidt v. Rohn, 127 App. Div. 220. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of run way throwing plaintiff to floor below. Schramme v. Lewison, 126 App. Div. 279. Dismissal of complaint, re- versed. Fall from scaffold from tipping of plank. Bower v. H. C. & R. Corporation, 125 App. Div. 684. Verdict, $11,750. Affirmed. Fall of runway on which plaintiff was walking. Hordern v. Salvation Army, 124 App. Div. 674. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Falling from platform and catching foot in platform. King v. Reid, 124 App. Div. 121. Verdict, $1,750. Reversed. Falling from poorly lighted platform after dark. Bauer v. Empire State Dairy Co., 115 App. Div. 71. Verdict, $3,000. Re- versed. Fall of gallery around steam boiler on which plaintiff was standing. McDonough »v. Clonbrock Steam Boiler Co., 113 App. Div. 432. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. Fall from scaffold while washing ceiling caused by tilting or tipping of plank. Stokes v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 112 App. Div. 77. Verdict, $325. Reversed. Fall from scaffold by breaking of defective plank when stepped on. Tierney v. Vunck, 97 App. Div. 1. Verdict, $750.. Affirmed. Fall of derrick car from bridge, owing to failure to anchor. Wagner v. N. Y. C. & St. L. R. R., 93 App. Div. 14. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 109 Falls from Scaffolds, Platform and Bridge—Continued Fall of tressel throwing plaintiff into the water causing injury. Mengle v. McClintic-Marshall Const. Co., 89 App. Div. 334. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall by collapse of temporary foot bridge in city street. Haney v. City of New York, 126 App. Div. 908. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall from hanging scaffolding while erecting steel stack. Smith v. Variety Iron & Steel Co., 72 Misc. 537. New trial denied. Falls, Fall of Piles of Objects Fall of lumber pile causing injury. Stinson v. Edgewater Saw Mills Co., 1389 App. Div. 169. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Fall of stone rolling down stone pile: where plaintiff was em- ployed. Bria v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 183 App. Div. 346. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Fall of lumber on child playing in vacant lot causing damages. ‘Middleton v. Reutler, 141 App. Div. 517. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Falling of boxes of merchandise improperly piled. Rashkoff v. Erie R. R., 141 App. Div. 624. Dismissal of complaint, re- versed. Fall of pile of flour sacks injuring plaintiff. Weinert v. Merchants & Shippers Warehouse Co., 127 Pepe Div. 826. Ver- dict, $5,200. Affirmed. Fall of beer kegs piled in street injuring plaintiff. Fluker v. Zeigele Brewing Co., 201 N. Y. 40. Judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. Reversing, 136 App. Div. 945. Fall of boxes not secured to wagon causing team to run. Johnston v. Stevens, 123 App. Div. 208. Motion for new trial. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of pile of lumber on plaintiff while taking lumber from pile and loading it on truck. Nigro v. Willson, 50 Misc. 656. Verdict, $250. Reversed. 110 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Falls, Fall of Piles of Objects—Continued Fall of stone pile injuring child. Kane v. Erie R. R. Co., 110 App. Div. 7. Verdict, $100. Reversed. Fall of iron beams in a pile catching plaintiff’s foot causing injury. Weizinger v. Erie R. R. Co., 106 App. Div. 411. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Fall of lumber pile injuring child. Powers v. Owego Bridge Co., 97 App. Div. 477. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Falls, Persons Falling Fall of person standing in door way resting against iron bar used as barrier, which fell out of sockets. Fahey v. New Amsterdam Gas Co., 134 App. Div. 611. Verdict, $4,500. Reversed. Fall because of defective plank in a frame. DeBock v. American Bridge Co., 181 App. Div. 480. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Fall from coal wagon from losing balance and defective tail piece. Mulligan v. Thompson Brothers, 143 App. Div. 413. Verdict, $1,000. Re- versed. Fall of plaintiff suddenly startled by starting of motor and blow- ing out of fuse, etc. Branoner v. Traitel Marble Co., 144 App. Div. 569. Verdict, $6,000. Re- versed. Falls Fall from being caught by a balloon operated by indepenaent contractor. Roper v. Ulster County Agricultural Society, 136 App. Div. 97. Verdict, $1,000. Judgment and order, affirmed. Falls, on Side Walk or Highways Falling on board side walk in city street and receiving injuries. Cross v. City of Syracuse, 129 App. Div. 935. Judgment and order, affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 111 Falls, on Side Walk or Highways—Continued Fall on icy side walk in front of public school where walk has unusual grade and slope. Owen v. City of N. Y., 141 App. Div. 217. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Plaintiff tripped.on flag stone in side walk, injuries caused thereby. Davidson v. City of N. Y., 183 App. Div. 353. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Falling into opening or improperly covered coal hole in side walk. Scott v. Curtis, 195 N.Y. 424. Reversed. Reversing, 126 App. Div. 916. Fall on street because of obstruction of ice and snow. Brennan v. City of N. Y., 130 App. Div. 267. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall by stepping in hole in sidewalk, plank removed. Ferguson »v. Village of Waverley, 128 App. Div. 697. Verdict, $250. Re- versed. Falling into gulley or trench across side walk. Purdy v. City of N. Y., 126 App. Div. 320. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of pedestrian in depression in bank near highway. Stadelmann v. City of N. Y., 126 App. Div. 352. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Falling on icy side walk and receiving injuries. Cupp v. City of Elmira, 126 App. Div. 539. Verdict $2,500, reversed. Slipping and falling on incline from curb to pavement. Stratton v. City of N. Y., 190 N. Y. 294. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Reversing, 117 App. Div. 887. Fall on side walk by foot slipping on gravel. Crecelius v. City of N. Y., 114 App. Div. 801. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall on icy side walk in front of defendant’s premises. Krebs v. Heitmann, 104 App. Div. 173. Defendant’s demurrer sustained. Fall on icy step in alighting from train. Ripp v. Fuchs, 129 App. Div. 321. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. 112 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Falls from Stumbling Over Obstacles Falling over gate rail while leaving ferry boat. Grabler v. N. Y. & East R. Ferry Co., 64 Misc. 58. Municipal Court judg- ment for plaintiff, reversed. Plaintiff thrown to ground by rope caught by passing train. Campbell v. L. I. R. B., 127 App. Div. 258. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Fall over ticket box tipped over on floor of station. Wagner v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 95 App. Div. 219. Judgment for de- fendants, affirmed. Falling over board placed as obstruction in gateway by fellow employee. Ryan v. Phipps, 146 App. Div. 642. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Falls, Fall of Structures Fall of platform by reason of employees sawing off timbers as directed by superintendent. Connolly v. Hall & Grant Const. Co., 192 N. Y. 182. Dismissal of complaint reversed. Reversing, 117 App. Div. 3. Fall of derrick causing injury. Ovelsen v. Howes Cons., Transportation & Contracting Co., 139 App. Div. 158. Verdict $5,000. Affirmed. Fall of derrick causing injury, boom not fastened down. Pratt v. McKee, 135 App. Div. 752. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of hoisting derrick tilting and falling into street. Lockhart v. Hoffman, 197 N. Y. 331. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 128 App. Div. 917. Fall of iron slab whtn being molded causing injury. Matteson v. Phoenix Construction Co., 135 App. Div. 234. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall of heavy object on body causing injury. Nyboe v. Stern, 65 Misc. 34. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. Fall of block of window from overhead causing injury. Flanagan v. Carlin Construction Co., 134° App. Div. 236. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 113 Falls, Fall of Structures—Continued Fall of box of concrete causing death of intestate. Emmi v. Ryan Parkes Const. Co., 1384 App. Div. 482. Order for bill of particulars, affirmed. Injury received by fall of telephone pole. Griffin v. N. Y. Telephone Co., 141 App. Div. 1. Verdict, $5,320. Re- versed. Fall of iron column being lifted by derricks, caused by breaking of boom line causing injury.. Hurley v. Olcott, 134 App. Div. 631. Verdict, $25,000. Affirmed. Falling plank left by city at appro to dump ground hitting driver of cart. McNamee v. Borough Development Co., 134 App. Div. 666. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall of heavy casting being removed from car by negligence of fellow servant. Ozogar v. Pierce, Butler & Pierce Mfg. Co., 184 App. Div. 800. Verdict, $2,000. Fall of wooden pulley from shaft and caused by loosening bolts. Griffin v. Flank, 132 App. Div. 334. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of steel truss because hook chain used to hoist the truss was in a defective condition. English v. Milliken Bros., 132 App. Div. 501. Appeal from order granting plaintiff’s motion for new trial, affirmed. Falling of skids between car and platform causing plaintiff to fall and truck to roll on plaintiff. Heiser v. Cincinnati Abattoir Co., 141: App. Div. 400. Verdict, $8,320. Reversed. Fall of derrick caused by breaking of defective leg of derrick. McDonnell v. Metropolitan Bridge & Const. Co., 131 App. Div. 301. Ver- dict, $7,000. Reversed. Fall of iron beam being lifted by plaintiff causing injury. Carlsen v. McKee, 129 App. Div. 652. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. 114 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Falls, Fall of Structures—Continued Fall of iron bucket striking plaintiff. Henry v. Hudson, Manhattan R. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 140. Judgment for de- fendants, reversed. Fall of metal plate while being moved on skids. Devine v. Hayward, 128 App. Div. 705. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of trolley wire causing injury. Hollis v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 821. Verdict, $750. Reversed. , Falling spindle hit plaintiff. Van Pelt v. Straight Line Engine Co., 127 App. Div. 829. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Fall of derrick by breaking of guy rod. Watson v. N. Y. Cont. Co., 127 App. Div. 134. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall of heavy material because of inadequate tools and ap- pliances. Gorman v. Millikan, 142 App. Div. 207. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed, Collapse and fall of bridge on theatrical stage causing injury. Hahn v. Conried Metropolitan Opera Co., 126 App. Div. 815. Verdict, $2,705. Reversed. Fall of material and wall of building collapsing. Glasgow v. Jordan, 124 App. Div. 488. Verdict, $750. Reversed. Fall and injuries caused by collapse of seats on which plaintiff was sitting as a spectator. Lusk v. Peck, 132 App. Div. 426. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. e Fall of trestle on which plaintiff was pushing loaded truck. Ristau v. Coe Co., 120 App. Div. 478. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Sudden fall of roof over side walk injuring plaintiff. Scheller v. Silbermintz, 50 Misc. 175. Municipal Court judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Fall of coal pockets defectively constructed under too great weight. O’Donnell v. Welz & Zerweck, 97 App. Div. 286. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 115 Falls, Fall of Structures—Continued Fall of platform bridge causing injury to plaintiff. Legzett v. City of Watertown, 93 App. Div. 80. Verdict, $800. Reversed. Fall of hook chain and block causing injury. O’Keefe v. Great Northern Elevator Co., 105 App. Div. 8. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of cement through chute dislodged by plaintiff and injuring plaintiff. Vaughn v. Glens Falls Cement Co., 105 App. Div. 136. Order setting aside verdict. Fall of truss through breaking of defective rope causing injury. Vogel v. American Bridge Co., 180 N. Y. 373. Judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. . Breaking and fall of iron band surrounding kiln of cement. ‘Schermerhorn v. Glens Falls Cement Co., 94 App. Div. 600. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of temporary arch used in building construction ‘causing injury. Haughey v. Thatcher, 89 App. Div. 375. Motion for new trial by plaintiff, denied. Falling by collapse of baleony while working. Nickel v. Ager, 141 App. Div. 576. Appeal from order for bill of particulars, reversed. Fall of roof in mine on failure to support with props. Tanne v. U.8. Gypsum Co., 126 App. Div. 244. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Fall of chute used to slide merchandise between floors injuring plaintiff. Ambellan v. Barcalo Mfg. Co., 118 App. Div. 547. Verdict, $6,000. Af- firmed. : Falls, Falling Down Stairs Falling on slippery stair way in theater. Mitcheltree v. Stair & William, 135 App. Div. 210. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. 116 & DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—PACTs Falls, Falling Down Stairs—Continued Fall on steps of comfort station. Pitman r. City of N. Y., 141 App. Div. 670. Plaintiff’s exceptions sustained and new trial granted. Falling down stairway by tripping over spike in stairs. Roth r. Feld Co., 59 Mise. 214.. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiif, affirmed. Falling down unlighted stair way in hall. Lather v. Bammann, 122 App. Div. 13. Verdict. $1,500. Reversed. Fall down stairway leading from dimly lighted hall. Robinson rv. Crimmins, 120 App. Div. 250. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Fall on stairway by slipping on piece of tobacco. Kaplowitz r..Interborough R. T. Co., 52 Mise. 648. Judgment for plaintiff, Municipal Court. reversed. Fall down steps in dark hallway of hotel. Dailey r. Distler, 115 App. Div. 102. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Falls on stairs caused by insufficient light. Greenfield r. Doepfner, 49 Mise. 651. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff. affirmed. Falls, Vessels Falling into coal hole in vessel when unloading vessel. Clinton r. Munson Steamship Line, 132 App. Div. 59. Verdict, $250. Affirmed. Fall of boxes placed in steamer’s gangway. Williams v. Citizens Sfeamboat Co.. 128 App. Div. 807. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Fall through hatch way of vessel. cover being removed and not sufficient light. Earle rv. Clyde Steamship Co.. 103 App. Div. 21. Verdict, $2,000. Re versed. Fall of timber from dock to float. injuring plaintiff. Aleekson vr. Erie R. R., 101 App. Div. 395. Judgment for defendant, re- versed. Dismissal of complaint. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 117 Falls, Vessels—Continued Fall through hatchway on vessel poorly lighted. Earle v. Clyde Steamship Co., 43 Misc. 535. Defendant’s motion for new trial, denied. 4 Fall of bundle of iron on plaintiff's leg while being lowered into vessel. Dair v. N. Y. & P. R. Steamship Co., 204 N. Y. 341. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Reversing 139 App. Div. 751. Fall on dock. Miller v. American Sugar Refining Co., 1388 App. Div. 512. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Falling through open hatchway in ship in darkness. Droge v. John N. Robins Co., 123 App. Div. 537. Verdict, $12,000. Re- versed. Falling through hole in dock. Birch v. City of N. Y., 121 App. Div. 395. Appeal by plaintiff from judg- ment Supreme Court for defendant, reversed. Failure Failure to deliver perishable freight. Bacharach v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 143 App. Div. 117. Appeal by de- fendant from judgment Municipal Court, affirmed. Fires Fall of wall left standing after fire, injuring trespasser. Haack v. Brooklyn Labor Lyccum Association, 44 Misc. 273. Motion to set aside verdict granted. Injury from failure to provide fire escapes. Di Santo v. Brooklyn Chair Co., 140 App. Div. 119. Verdict, $6,500. Af- firmed. Fire caused by spark, locomotive spark arrester out of repair. Chandler v. Rutland R. R. Co., 140 App. Div. 68. Verdict, $4,000. Re- versed. Injuries from jumping out of window by negligence of defendant in providing fire escapes. Maiorca v. Myers, 131 App. Div. 210. Verdict for defendant, demurrer, affirmance. 118 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Fires—Continued Damage sustained by fire. Continental Ins. Co. v. N. Y. Gas, etc., Co., 193 N. Y. 186. Judgment, reversed. Child burned from fire in vacant lot. Specht v. Waterbury Co., 70 Misc. 404. Motion for non-suit, denied. Fire caught from passing of defendant’s train. Nichols v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 61 Misc. 195. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Loss of scarf destroyed by fire in custody of bailee. Cramer v. Klein, 127 App. Div. 146. Appeal by plaintiff from order of Municipal Court, affirmed. Fire from spark of locomotive on railroad right of way. McDonough p. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 124 App. Div. 38. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fire caused by spark from railroad train, defective smoke stack. Decora v. Rutland R. R. Co., 142 App. Div. 914. Non-suit, affirmed. Fire burning automobile setting building on fire. Davis v. Bouton Motor Co., 126 App. Div. 340. Dismissal of complaint, Reversed. Fire started on adjoining land permitted to spread to plaintiff’s land causing injury. Phelps v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 48 Misc. 27. Demurrer to com- plaint, overruled. Death in hotel fire caused by absence of stand pipe, stelraay door locked. Acton v. Reed, 104 App. "Div. 507. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fire resulting from negligent installation of electric wires and lights. German American Ins. Co. v. N. Y. Gas. & Elec. Co., 103 App. Div. 310. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Jumping from window, no fire escape being provided and crowd filling the one escape. Sembler v. Cowperthwait, 53 Misc. 28. Motion to set aside verdict for new trial, denied. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 119 Fires—Continued Fire destroying freight in railroad freight house. Van Akin v. Erie R. R. Co., 92 App. Div. 23. Judgment for defendant, reversed. . Fire from defective electric wiring destroying building. Herzog v. Municipal Elec. Light Co., 89 App. Div. 569. Judgment for de- fendant, affirmed. Dismissal of complaint. Fire destroying barn and contents: Groell v. Ast, 145 App. Div. 154. Motion for new trial denied. Fireworks Explosion of bomb injuring pedestrian. DeAgramonte v. City of Mt. Vernon, 123 App. Div. 717. Verdict, $5,500. Affirmed. Hit by missle thrown by explosion of fire works. De Agramonte v. City of Mt. Vernon, 112 App. Div. 291. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Fire escaping from locomotive burning buildings of plaintiff. Jacobs v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 107 App. Div. 134. Verdict, $3,200. Affirmed. Hit by falling rocket from fire works display. Crowley v. Rochester Fireworks Co., 183 N. Y. 353. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Explosion of fire works set off on private lot by city authority, causing injury. Walker v. City of N. Y., 107 App. Div. 351. Verdict, $4,775. Affirmed. Hit by rocket stick while witnessing exhibition from adjoining street. Crowley v. Rochester Fireworks Co., 95 App. Div. 13. Non-suit. Judg- ment for defendant, affirmed. Explosion of fire works causing injury. Landau v. City of N. Y., 180 N. Y.48. Judgment for defendant, re- versed. ‘ 120 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Fireworks—Continued Spectator hit by rocket stick while attending exhibition in park. Deyo. v. Kingston Consolidated R. R. Co., 94 App. Div. 578. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Fire Arms and Fire Hose ; Cutting of fire hose by train, increasing fire loss in building. Phenix Ins. Co. v. N. Y. C. & H.R. R.R. Co., 122 App. Div. 1138. Ver- dict, $15,159.28. Affirmed. Injuries from loaded revolver. Ship v. Fridenburg, 132 App. Div. 782. Appeal from order, reversed. Floor Slipping on floor striking cog wheel in machine. Valentino v. Garvin Machine Co., 1389 App. Div. 139. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmed. Slipping in hole on factory floor. Milligan v. Clayville Knitting Co., 187 App. Div. 383. Verdict, $1,200. Reversed. Slipping on oiled floor and thrusting hand in machine. Martin v. Walker & William Mfg. Co., 198 N. Y. 324. Judgment for plain- tiff reversed. Reversing, 128 App. Div. 733. Slipping on oiled floor and falling into machine. Welch v. Waterbury & Co., 186 App. Div. 315. Verdict, $7,000. Reversed. Falling into tank of water in floor of cellar. Ward v. Hill, 125 App. Div. 587. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Slipping on oiled floor’and falling into machinery. Martin». Walker & Williams Mfg. Co., 122 App. Div. 280. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Falling through hole unguarded in floor by plank being removed. Heffron v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 121 App. Div. 35. Appeal by plaintiff from order, reversed. Falling into vat while crossing floor in night time. Krug v. American Sugar Refining Co., 120 App. Div. 537. Verdict, $2,250. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 121 Floor—Continued Fall through opening in floor in building under construction. McHugh »v. Grand Central Bldg. & Const. Co., 133 App. Div. 100. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Falling in hole in factory floor unguarded. Baumann v. Schrumpf, 142 App. Div. 68. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. Slipping and falling on floor of department store. Dudley v. Abraham, 122 App. Div. 480. Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court for defendant by plaintiff, reversed. Fall on slippery floor and catching hair in machine. Schalk v. Commercial Twine Co., 122 App. Div. 521. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Foot slipping on oil spot on floor and drawn into unguarded pulley belt. Johnson v. Onondaga Paper Co., 112 App. Div. 667. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Catching foot in hole in defective floor while wheeling truck. Burke v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 722. Verdict, $4,000. Af- firmed. Passenger tripping by catching foot in defective mat on car floor. Heslin v. Lake Champlain & Moriah R. R., 109 App. Div. 814. Appeal from Supreme Court, order, reversed. Falling in dark hall and catching foot in cloth on floor of hallway. Keating v. Mott, 92 App. Div. 156. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Fall on slippery floor catching fingers in machine causing injury. Welch v. Waterbury Co., 144 App. Div. 213. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Slipping on slippery floor catching hand in machinery. Kimmerle v. Carey Printing Co., 144 App. Div. 714. Verdict, $15,000. Reversed. Slipping on floor and running splinter in foot. Stelter v. Cordes, 146 App. Div. 300. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff. 122 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Floor—Continued Tenant slipping on grape skin left on hall floor in tenement house. Maringer v. Hill, 146 App. Div. 720. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Slipping and falling on greasy gangway. Broadbent v. Evening Journal Publishing Co., 147 App. Div. 133. Verdict, $2,750. Reversed. Fall on slippery floor and catching hand in cogs of machinery. ° Match v. Polygraph Printing Co., 147 App. Div. 152. Verdict, $685. Af- firmed. Tripping over concealed nails in sawmill floor and thrusting hand on unguarded saw. Finkle v. Bolton Landing Lumber Co., 148 App. Div. 500. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Slipping on oily floor, clothing caught in machinery. Shannahan v. Empire Engineering Corporation, 204 N. Y. 543. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Gas Explosion of gas in still. Anderson v. Casey Co., 1386 App. Div. 361. Verdict, $6,000. Affirmed. Gas explosion caused by its escaping from unclosed pipe. Kenney v. South Shore Natural Gas & Fuel Co., 134 App. Div. 859. Ver- dict, $16,000. Affirmed. , Leakage permeating frozen ground and injuring premises. Hammerschmidt v. Municipal Gas Co., 114 App. Div. 290. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Explosion while inserting valve in gas main without use of guards. Cadigan v. Glens Falls Gas & E. L. Co., 112 App. Div. 751. Dismissal of complaint. Explosion of gas, wrecking room and injuring plaintiff. Mowers v. Municipal Gas Co., 142 App. Div. 169. Verdict, $1,000. Re- versed. Employee overcome by gas from defective furnace and falling into hopper. Stenger v. Buffalo Union Furnace Co., 109 App. Div. 183. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 123 Gas—Continued Explosion of acetylene gas generator, gas ignited by a gas jet. Razey v. Colt Co., 106 App. Div. 103. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Overcome by gas from furnace and falling into furnace hopper, causing death. Stenger v. Buffalo Union Furnace Co., 98 App. Div. 361. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Leakage from mains destroying shade trees. Donahue v. Keystone Gas Co., 90 App. Div. 386. Verdict, $150. Affirmed. Explosion of gas in cellar of tenement injuring tenant. King v. Consolidated Gas Co., 90 App. Div. 166. Verdict, $650. Reversed. Break in main causing death of employee entering manhole. Murphy ». City of N. Y., 89 App. Div. 93. Dismissal of complaint. Bursting of gas receiving tank injuring plaintiff. Duerr v. Consolidated Gas Co., 86 App. Div. 14. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Injury to shade trees by escaping gas. Fullerton v. Glens Falls Gas & Electric Light Co., 148 App. Div. 481. Ver- dict, $200. Reversed. Gas Engine Starting of gas engine causing injuries requiring amputation of arm. Tivnan v. Keahon, 117 App. Div. 50. Verdict, $8,700.. Affirmed. ‘Gangway Fall from gangway by foot slipping on defective cleat. Baker v. Empire Wire Co., 102 App. Div. 125. Verdict, $3,250. Reversed. ‘Girder Fall of girder by breaking of chain. Shutter v. McClintic Marshall Construction Co., 122 App. Div. 293. Ver- dict, $4,000. Reversed. 124 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Glass Cutting of arm by breaking glass held against felt wheel. Goldstein v. Werbelovsky, 141 App. Div. 138. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Cut by glass while pushing against door of railroad station. McCormack v. Interborough R. T. Co., 132 App. Div. 703. Order affirming Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, pepemsed: Fall of glass from sky light injuring plaintiff. Shaw v. Feltman, 121 App. Div. 597. Demurrer. Fall of pane of glass injuring plaintiff. Rockstrow v. Astoria Marble Co., 121 App. Div. 144. Appeal from judg- ment Municipal Court by defendant for plaintiff, reversed. Patron of bathing establishment cut by glass when taking a bath. Jones v. Levy, 50 Misc. 624. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. Fall of broken glass from window during storm injuring pedes- trian. Boyd v. Shopiro Co., 147 App. Div. 185. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Guards Failure to guard signal rope on elevator. McDonnell v. Robinson Co., 1386 App. Div. 598. Verdict, $4,500. Reversed. Injury from hand in contact with unguarded saw. Osterman v. Ware, 135 App. Div. 119. Verdict, $1,400. Reversed. Injury from hair caught in revolving shaft, not guarded. Kirwan v. American Lithographic Co., 197 N. Y. 413. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Clothing caught in unguarded set screw in shaft near shelves where employee had to place patterns. Wittmer v. Fairhurst, 134 App. Div. 305. Dismissal of complaint, reversal. Unguarded rail on which trolley ran and hand caught on the rail. “Wynkoop v. Ludlow Valve Mfg. Co., 196 N. Y. 324. Affirmance of judg- ment for plaintiff, reversing 126 App. Div. 939. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 125 Guards—Continued Hand caught in unguarded cog wheel of machinery. Lee v. Sterling Silk Mfg. Co., 134 App. Div. 123. Judgment for defendant affirmed. Fall through opening unguarded in floor of building under con- struction. McHugh »v. Grand Central Building & Const. Co., 133 App. Div. 100. Ver- dict, $5,000. Reversed. Hand caught and crushed in unguarded rollers while rolling rub- ber. Matej v. India Rubber & Gutta Percha Insulating Co., 183 App. Div. 131. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Unguarded cross head on the machine and slipping while oiling causing plaintiff to be caught in machine. Toye v. United Dressed Beef Co., 141 App. Div. 332. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Failure to guard circular saw causing injury to hand. Proctor v. Rockville Center Milling & Const. Co., 141 App. Div. 900. Ver- dict, $2,750. Affirmed. Falling into hole in factory, floor unguarded. Baumann v. Schrumpf, 142 App. Div. 68. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. Hand caught in machine by guards being unfastened. Mansell v. Conrad, 125 App. Div. 634. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed. Unguarded knives of joiner injuring workman. Graves v. Stickley Co., 125 App. Div. 132. Verdict, $200. Affirmed. Thrown on unguarded belt of fly wheel. Hartman v. Berlin & Jones Envelope Co., 71 Misc. 30. Motion for new trial, denied. Arm caught in unguarded cogs while seeking to avoid falling stone. Perrotta v. Richmond Brick Co., 123 App. Div. 626. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. , Fall of tile through opening in floor not guarded. Finnegan v. Robinson Co., 124 App. Div. 117. Verdict, $9,000. Reversed. 126 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Guards—Continued Failure to guard revolving knife of planing machine and to adjust belt. Hoyt v. Davis Mfg. Co., 112 App. Div. 755. Verdict, $600. Order denying motion to set aside verdict, reversed. Removal of guard rail from machine for the purpose of repairing, causing injury. : Pinsdorf v. Kellogg & Co., 108 App. Div. 209. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Hit by unguarded belt of machine while examining mill ma- chinery. Hubbell v. Pioneer Paper Co., 147 App. Div. 339. Judgment for defendant on dismissal of complaint, reversed. Hand Hands caught in machinery by guards being unfastened. Mansell v. Conrad, 125 App. Div. 634. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed Hatchway Fall through open hatchway in hold of ship. Droge v. John N. Robins Co., 123 App. Div. 537. Verdict, $12,000. Re- versed. Highways, Excavations in Excavation in new street, failure to guard or refill. Tabor v. City of Buffalo, 136 App. Div. 258. Judgment for defendants, reversed. Plaintiff injured by wheel of wagon going into excavation in street. Swift v. Brooklyn Height8 R. R., 134 App. Div. 134. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Stepping into trench excavated in constructing pavement. McHugh »v. Interstate Paving Co., 121 App. Div. 517. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Pedestrian stepping into open gutter between cross walk and side walk. O’Connor v. City of Dunkirk, 143 App. Div. 696. Verdict, $4,000. Re- versed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 127 Highways, Excavations in—Continued Plaintiff leaving highway and falling into excavation adjacent thereto. Crimmins v. United Engineering & Cont. Co., 49 Misc. 622. Non-suit. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Horse falling into excavation in highway at night, light having been removed. McFeeters v. City of N. Y., 102 App. Div. 32. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. : Horse falling into ditch maintained in village highway. Bradner v. Village of Warwick, 91 App. Div. 408. Verdict, $2,500. Af- firmed. Horse driven into ditch opened for water mains, injuring em- ployee. Boston v. Abraham, 91 App. Div. 417. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. Highway, Holes in Fall of pedestrian in depression in bank of highway. Stadelman v. City of N. Y., 126 App. Div. 352. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Injured from coal hole in street. Gray v. N. Y. City, 187 App. Div. 319. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Injured from falling in hole in highway unguarded and unlighted. Gaebler v. Gallo, 198 N. Y. 344. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Affirm- ing, 131 App. Div. 935. Fall through hole in bridge when plank flew up. Thompson v. Town of Bath, 142 App. Div. 331. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Horse falling into hole in highway throwing driver from vehicle. Farrell v. City of N. Y., 113 App. Div. 687. Verdict, $250. Reversed. Plaintiff injured by running into hole in highway. Madigan v. Town of Schaghticoke, 143 App. Div. 887. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Slipping from rail of track into rut extending across crosswalk and catching foot. Ross v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 104 App. Div. 378. Appeal from Supreme Court order. 128 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Highway, Holes in—Continued Driver driving into hole in ditch in highway. King v. Village of Fort Ann, 180 N. Y. 496. Judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. Fall while attempting to alight from wagon which had run into sluice in highway. Snowdon v. Town of Somerset, 100 App. Div.39. Verdict, $2,000. Affirmed. Horse injured by stepping into hole by the side of car rail in highway. Butin v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 100 App. Div. 42. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Bicycle rider falling into manhole in public street. Walsh v. Central N. Y. Telephone Co., 176 N. Y. 163. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 74 App. Div. 1. Highway, Obstructions in Horse running into obstruction in highway in the night, and falling causing plaintiff and companion to be thrown from carriage. Tutt v. City of Rensselaer, 126 App. Div. 502. Verdict, #550. Affirmed. Falling over obstruction, steps projecting upon side walk. e Graham v. City of New Rochelle, 120 App. Div. 414. Verdict, $1,200. Affirmed. Fall on sloping way laid from curb to cross walk. Stratton v. City of N. Y., 117 App. Div. 887. Dismissal of complaint, re- - versed. Injury to horse by stepping on loose stone in village highway. McKone v. Village of Warsaw, 187 N. Y. 336. Judgment appellate division, reversed. Tripping over rope connecting two automobiles moving along street. Titus v. Tangeman, 116 App. Div. 487. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Pile of muck in highway overturning vehicle. Sweet v. Perkins, 115 App. Div. 784. Judgment Supreme Court for plain- tiff, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 129 Highway, Obstructions in—Continued Collision with obstruction in street while driving. Pack v. City of N. Y. et al., 51 Misc. 652. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Vehicle colliding with building material in public street injuring driver. ; Mulvey v. City of N. Y., 114 App. Div. 526. Verdict, $1,000. Affirmed. Pedestrian falling by stumbling over planks covering excavation in effort to catch car. Derby v. Degnon McLean Contracting Co., 112 App. Div. 324. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Thrown by negligence of driver driving against obstruction in highway. Beecroft v. N. Y. Athletic Club, 111 App. Div. 392. Verdict, $9,500. Affirmed.. . Automobile driving at night against manhole: cover in street being graded. Gedroice v. City of N. Y., 109 App. Div. 176. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Stubbing toe against edge of projecting plank in surface of walk. Carr v. Degnon Contracting Co., 48 Mise. 531. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff. ‘ Obstruction of highway in construction of sewer, damages to abutting owner. Schleicher v. City of Mt. Vernon, 107 App. Div. 584. Judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Thrown from wagon by driving into heap of stones in highway. Godfrey v. City of New York, 104 App. Div. 357. Verdict, $30,000. Af- firmed. Pedestrian catching foot thrown down while walking over tem- porary passage way. Keating v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 105 App. Div. 362. Order setting aside verdict for defendant. Horse driven over unfinished highway catching foot in cobble stone causing injury. Shepard v. Bellew & Merritt Co., 101 App. Div. 257. 130 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Highway, Obstructions in—Continued Tripping over cord stretched across foot bridge in public street. Schiverea v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 89 App. Div. 340. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Dragged by horse over pile of stones left in highway. Stedman v. Town of Osceola, 147 App. Div. 220. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Horse running away frightened by odors and stone pile left. by contractor along highway. Booth v. Town of Orleans, 147 App. Div. 240. Judgment for defendant affirmed on dismissal of complaint. Horse injured by stepping on ridge of ice in city street and fall- ing, causing injury. Loretz v. City of N. Y., 148 App. Div. 721. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Highway, Miscellaneous Fall over embankment through failure to put up guard rail. Farrell v. Town of North Salem, 139 App. Div. 164. Verdict, $500. Af- firmed. Pedler in street run down by wagon. Collender v. Reardon, 138 App. Div. 738. Judgment for defendant, re- versed. Fall from wagon caused by defective highway. Hayden v. Joline, 187 App. Div. 755. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. Overturning of wagon by defective highway. Collins v. City of Watervliet, 130 App. Div. 291. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Policeman run down in street while on duty. Xenodochius »v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 129 App. Div. 26. Judgment Municipal Court, affirmed. Defective highway causing upset of wagon and throwing plain- tiff out. Clarke v. Town of Copake, 142 App. Div. 202. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 131 Highway, Miscellaneous—Continued Truck colliding with trolley pole in highway throwing driver. Lanigan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 125 App. Div. 622. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Defects in highway causing loaded vehicle to overturn injuring driver. McDowell v. City of Auburn, 126 App. Div. 173. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Thrown down by stones piled along highway while leading horse. Stedman v. Town of Osceola, 71 Misc. 186. Verdict, $1,500. Motion to set aside verdict, denied. Plaintiff injured by blasting on highway. Miller v. Twiname, 129 App. Div. 623. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Horse frightened backing wagon off bridge over embankment approach. Wallace v. Town of New Albion, 121 App. Div. 66. Verdict, $5,000. Af- firmed. Horse frightened by negligent operation of steam roller, precipi- tating plaintiff to the ground and causing injury. Winter v. City of Niagara Falls, 119 App. Div. 586. Demurrer, overruled. Hit by automobile while witnessing speed contest in highway. Johnson v. City of N. Y., 186 N. Y. 139. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall from bridge temporarily erected over excavation in street. Bell v. City of N. Y., 114 App. Div. 22. Order Supreme Court dismissing complaint. Motion for new trial, denied. Fall of sign board standing outside of building under construc- tion. Bowden v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, 113 App. Div. 738. Verdict, $1,250. Reversed. Pedestrian hit by pole of team driven on wrong side of street. Zapfe v. John Mullins & Sons, 112 App. Div. 34 (Mem.). Order denying defendant’s motion for new trial, reversed. Sudden collapse of roof over side walk injuring plaintiff. Scheller v. Silbermintz, 50 Mise. 175. Municipal Court judgment for de- fendant, reversed. 132 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Highway, Miscellaneous—Continued Street sweeper pushing cart across street, run over by truck driven rapidly. Charters v. Palmer, 113 App. Div. 108. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall from unguarded approach to highway bridge in night time. Farrell v. Town of North Elba, 112 App. Div. 144. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall of shed over walk erected in building operations. Lubelsky v. Silverman, 49 Misc. 133. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Fall caused by defective walk over railroad crossing. Durr v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 184 N. Y. 320. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Fall of wooden horse on employee in manhole, it being hit by passing vehicle. Wootton v. Flatbush Gas Co., 102 App. Div. 294. Verdict, $950. Reversed. Pedestrian in street struck by falling banner pole causing in- juries. Durfield v. City of N. Y., 101 App. Div. 581. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Highway left in dangerous condition causing injury. Hayner v. Town of Schaghticoke, 126 App. Div. 498. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Employee of street department struck by car while engaged in sweeping track. Reilly v. Interurban St. BR. R., 108 App. Div. 254. Judgment for defend- ant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Thrown against telephone pole near highway by horse running away. Bailey v. Bell Telephone Co., 147 App. Div. 224. Verdict, $2,000. Re- versed. Runaway horse in highway colliding with plaintiff’s vehicle. Tooker v. Fowler & Sellars Co., 147 App. Div. 164. ae Court judgment for defendant, affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 133 Hits, Falling Objects Hit by bucket lowered in excavation. Borsky v. National Lead Co., 189 App. Div. 714. Verdict, $2,000. Re- versed. Hit by hammer head flying from handle when not properly fastened. O’Connor v. Miller, 1834 App. Div. 315. Verdict, $350. County Court, affirmed. Spectator at theater seated under spot light and hit by slide dropped by operator. Thomas v. Springer, 134 App. Div. 640. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. Employee responding to foreman’s signal to remove timber, hit by falling tie thrown from elevated railroad structure. Larson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 184 App. Div. 679. Appeal from dis- missal of complaint, affirmed. Railroad employee hit by fall of tie from tressel along which it was being moved in construction. Heilig v. Burns, 133 App. Div. 764. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Hit by girder of building being lowered by derrick, caused by engineer’s allowing load to go too fast. Stewart v. Hinkle Iron Co., 141 App. Div. 224. Dismissal of order vacating complaint, reversed. Struck by bucket used for hoisting purposes causing fall into excavation causing injuries. Simpson v. Foundation Co., 182 App. Div. 375. Verdict, $2,500. Re- versed. Hit by falling steel truss because of defective hook chain used to hoist the truss. English v. Milliken Bros., 132 App. Div. 501. Appeal from order, granting plaintiff’s motion for new trial, affirmed. Plaintiff hit by engine striking plank which plaintiff was carrying to remove from railroad track and injured. Lomonaco v. Murphy Construction Co., 132 App. Div. 674. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. 134 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Hits, Falling Objects—Continued Hit by barrel thrown from loft by servant of defendant while plaintiff accompanied boy sent to receive barrel. Wallace v. Casey Co., 132 App. Div. 35. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Hit by board thrown from roof by employee of janitor without owner’s consent. q Ellefson v. Singer, 1382 App. Div. 89. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Pedestrian on street hit by brick falling from top of building, causing injury. Hughes v. Harbor & Suburban B. & S. Association, 131 App. Div. 185. Verdict, $40,000. Hit by lump of coal falling from tender of engine. Utess v. Erie R. R. Co., 181 App. Div. 447. Verdict, $8,500. Reversed. Hit by falling brick. Mulleney v. McDonald, 130 App. Div. 570. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Hit on head by substance dropped from bridge. Dorn v. Snare & Triest Company, 62 Misc. 269. City Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Hit by elevator while in basement. Anderson v. Pelham Hod Elevator Co., etc., 129 App. Div. 639. Dismissing complaint. Hit by materials falling from a hoist. Schultz v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 127 App. Div. 305. Verdict, $275. Reversed. Hit on head by hook falling from hoisting tackle. Desmond v. Foundation Co., 142 App. Div. 537. Verdict, $7,000. Re- versed. Hit by heavy bucket used in excavation. Simpson ». Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479. Judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. Reversing, 134 App. Div. 930. Hit by falling railroad tie from bundle. Wack »v. Tobin, 122 App. Div. 704. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 135 Hits, Falling Objects—Continued Hit by falling trap door down elevator shaft. Bradford v. Banker Bros. Co., 122 App. Div. 523. Verdict, $9,000. Re- versed. i Hit by plank thrown upon plaintiff by projecting tender of canal. Spencer v. State of N. Y., 187 N. Y. 484. Court of Claims judgment, af- firmed. Affirming, 110 App. Div. 585. Hit by fall of beam from awning, under which plaintiff was work- ing. Meaney v. Hurwitz, 115 App. Div. 572.. Judgment Municipal Court, re- versed. Hit by bundle of papers thrown from rapidly moving train. Clifford ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 111 App. Div. 809. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Hit by iron bolt dropped from scaffold on which plaintiff was employed. Miller v. Levering & Garrigues Co., 144 App. Div. 12. Appeal from Su- preme Court, order, appellate term, reversed. Hit by fall of loaded tub lifted by cable. MeMullen v. City of N. Y., 110 App. Div. 117. Verdict, $4,000. Affirmed. Hit by falling beam placed on edge of gallery above where in- testate worked. Barsalou v. Peirce, 109 App. Div. 506. Verdict, $500: Reversed. Hit by iron rod dropped by co-employee repairing defective ma- chinery. Koszlowski v. American Locomotive Co., 96 App. Div. 40. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Hit by falling brace supporting sheathing in ditch injuring em- ployee. Winters v. Naughton, 91 App. Div. 80. Verdict, $4,500. Reversed. Driver of cart hit by falling plank while approaching dump ground fixed by city. McNamee v. Borough Development Co., 134 App. Div. 666. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. 136 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Hits, Falling Objects—Continued Hit by sliding pipe striking legs of derrick not properly stayed. Tamaseric v. Beckwith, 145 App. Div. 78. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Hit by falling concrete thrown from dump car injuring plaintiff. Anderson v. McMullen, 145 App. Div. 547. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Hits, Flying Objects Hit by rock in blasting destroying use of arm, defendant having charge of blasting work. Burke v. City & Co. Contract Co., 183 App. Div. 113. Verdict, $9,000. Affirmed. Hit by iron bar in hands of fellow workman suddenly struck by train. Inglese v. N. Y.. N. H. & H. R. R., 183 App. Div. 198. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Hit by stone thrown by premature explosion of blast. Baccelli v. North River Stone Co., 133 App. Div. 449. Judgment dismissing complaint, affirmed. Hit by piece of wooden pulley bursting, breaking leg. Kimball v. O'Dell & Eddy Co., 131 App. Div. 542. Verdict, $1,500. Re- versed. Hit by window being broken. McCherry v. Snare & Triest Co. & B. H. R. R. Co., 130 App.' Div. 241. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Hit by unknown object from passing train. Eaton v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 195 N. Y. 267. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 125 App#Div. 54. Hit in eye by piece of defective belting. Ditman v. Edison Elec. Illumination Co., 125 App. Div. 691. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Hit by hammer head flying off and striking plaintiff. Gallo v. Dunn, 71 Mise. 132. City Court, judgment for plaintiff reversed. Hit by splinter flying off from drill which had become defective. Kellogg v. N. Y. Edison Co., 120 App. Div. 410. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 137 Hits, Flying Objects—Continued Hit by recoil of wire and sight of eye destroyed. Damjanovic v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co., 119 App. Div. 12. Ver- dict, $3,500. Reversed. Hit by block of wood thrown from shaping machine. Swarts v. Wilson Mfg. Co., 115 App. Div. 739. Judgment Supreme Court for plaintiff, affirmed. Hit by flying chip from drop forge hammer. Paul v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 113 App. Div. 515. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Hit by tie thrown by passing train. Bannon v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 112 App. Div. 552. Verdict $750. Reversed. Hit by glass splinters thrown by explosion of water gage. Healey v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh R. R., 111 App. Div. 618. Ver- dict, $2,500. Reversed. Hit in eye by splinter of glass bulb dropped by defendant’s employee. Whittacker v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & Suburban R. R., 110 App. Div. 767. Verdict, $325. Affirmed. Hit by knife flying out of molding planer by breaking of bolt. Moran v. Mulligan, 110 App. Div. 208. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Hit by broken crank handle when rapidly revolving machine is set in motion by jar. Hazzard v. State of N. Y., 108 App. Div. 119. Dismissing of plaintifi’s claim, reversed. Hit by flying piece of steel from cutting rail with chisel and hammer. Fasani v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 404. Verdict, $600. Reversed. ; Hit by flying steel shaving. ; Bilicki v. Staten Island Ship Building Co., 147 App. Div. 687. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. 138 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Hits, Flying Objects—Continued Hit in eye by sliver from chisel, defect in metal. Crilley v. New Amsterdam Gas Co., 106 App. Div. 127. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Hit by draft of sugar swung against plaintiff. Ford v. Arbuckle, 107 App. Div. 221. Municipal Court judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Hit in eye by flying nail caused by negligent act of fellow work- man. Allcot v. Kirkham, 101 App. Div. 77. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Pedestrian hit by stone ejected by blast set off by contractor. Turner v. Degnon-McLean Contracting Co., 99 App. Div. 135. Verdict, $500. Affirmed. Hit by flying object caused by broken wheel from fall of coal wagon. McKenzie v. Waddell Coal Co., 89 App. Div. 415. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Hit by flying piece of defective belt injuring plaintiff’s eye. Dittman v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 87 App. Div. 68. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Hits, by Machinery Hit by hoisting bucket causing injury. McGovern v. Degnon-McLean Contracting Co., -120 App. Div. 524. Ver- dict, $400. Reversed. Hit by crane and runrfing over plaintiff’s foot while standing on beam. Young v. Bradley & Son, 129 App. Div. 678. Verdict, $1,000. Hit by descent of arm of steam shovel. Impellizzieri v. Cranford, 141 App. Div. 755. Verdict, $300. Reversed. Hit by tackle used to move iron girders: insecure bolt. McKenna »v. Snare & Triest Co., 147 App. Div. 855. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 139 Hits by Street Cars and Steam Cars Hit by street car while playing in the street. Smith v. Rochester R. R. Co., 133 App. Div. 847. Verdict, $700. Reversed. Hit by cars used by master to transport material while crossing track. Matrusciello v. Milliken Bros., 141 App. Div. 769. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Struck by locomotive at grade crossing. Robison v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 128 App. Div. 677. Non-suit, reversed. Hit by train while repairing bridge. House v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 128 App. Div. 756. Verdict, $8,000. Re- versed. Hit by bent brace on car and thrown under car. Wilson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 129 App. Div. 125. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Collision between cars pushed along track by employees, injur- ing plaintiff. Neary v. Development & Founding Co., 146 App. Div. 166. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Hits by Vehicles Hit by automobile and run over. O’Reilly v. Davis, 136 App. Div. 386. Verdict, $275. Reversed. Hit by vehicle while waiting for car in public street. Muldoon »v. City Fireproofing Co., 134 App. Div. 453. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversal. Hit by cart on street while focusing camera. Mastin v. City of New York, 201 N. Y. 81. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Hits, Miscellaneous Hit by striking against the side of building while being lowered in spectacular play, by rope pulled by co-employee. Davenport v. Oceanic Amusement Co., 132 App. Div. 368. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. 140 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Hits, Miscellaneous—Continued - Hit and crushed by iron pot, between it and the railing around it. Pepe v. Utica Pipe Foundry Co., 132 App. Div. 458. Non-suit, reversed. Hit by barrel passing down cable way. Weitzmann v. Barber Asphalt Co., 129 App. Div. 443. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. Hitting head against moving draw bridge. Nicholls v. City of New York, 128 App. Div. 532. Verdict, $750. Re- versed. Striking hatch comb pulled by rope on reversal of winch. Hanson v. Hogan, 61 Misc. 95. Judgment of Municipal Court, reversed. Hit received while boarding car causing tuberculosis. Roenbeck v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 123 App. Div. 606. Verdict, $9,000. Affirmed. Hit by barrel carried by cable over pontoon on which plaintiff stood. Weitzmann v. Barber Asphalt Co., 190 N. Y. 452. Affirming judgment for plaintiff. Hit by bucket, the apparatus of which had become out of repair. Hamnstrown v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 122 App. Div. 48. Appeal from order denying defendant’s motion. Reversed. Hit by fellow servant while driving bung in barrel. Andrews v. Reinerg, 111 App. Div. 485. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Dismissal of complaint. Hit by train while crossjng at railroad crossing. Seidman v. L. I. R. R. Co., 104 App. Div. 4. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Hit and knocked down by draft of.sugar set in motion without proper signal. Quinn v. National Sugar Refining Co., 102 App. Div. 47. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Hit by coal flowing down chute after being dislodged by em- ployee. Fleming v. Tuttle, 98 App. Div. 222. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 141 Hits, Miscellaneous—Continued Hit by elevator descending on plaintiff in shaft. Schwartz v. Onward Construction Co., 130 App. Div. 588. Judgment dis- missing complaint. Struck by pusher engine while crossing track. Browne v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 87 App. Div. 206. Verdict, $2,000. Af- firmed. Hoist Hit by hoist lowered in street. Sartirana v. N. Y. County Nat. Bank, 1389 App. Div. 597. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed as to part of defendants, reversed as to part of defendants. Breaking of hoist rope causing injury. Beauregard v.. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 136 App. Div. 834. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmed. Fall of hoisting elevator in building, failure to guard elevator. Sabatino v. Roebling Const. Co., 186 App. Div. 217. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. t Fall caused by breaking beam in hoist. Holm v. Empire Hardware Co., 137 App. Div. 96. Verdict, $500. Re- versed. Fall of stone from hoisting dogs injuring employee. McCarthy v. Norcross Brothers Co., 121 App. Div. 775. Verdict, $6,500. Reversed. Injured by fall of hoist. Haggblad v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 117 App. Div. 838. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Breaking of rope in hoist way injuring passenger watching pro- cess. Ganguzza v. Anchor Line, 97 App. Div. 352. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Holes Fall of grating over coal hole near opening upon finger of child of tenant. Strobel v. Liemann, 197 N. Y. 348. Judgment for plaintiff of appellate division, reversed. Reversing, 123 App. Div. 910. 142 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Horse Kicked by horse causing injury. Martin v. Althaus, 139 App. Div. 622. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Plaintiff struck by horse under saddle while crossing street. Cherbulez v. Parsons, 59 Misc. 613. Motion to set aside verdict, denied. Horse shying at noise of air brakes on car, causing injury. Hoag v. South Dover Marble Co., 192 N. Y. 412. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 120 App. Div. 892. Kicked by horse while being exhibited at auction. Karcher v. Fiss, Doerr & Carroll Horse Co., 127 App. Div. 213. Verdict, $1,200. Affirmed. Injured by running from street to railroad track and there falling. Marshall v. Auburn & Northern Elec. R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 911. Ver- dict, $1,600. Affirmed. Child bitten by horse standing near curb. Corcoran v. Kelly, 61 Misc. 323. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Horse kicked by defendant’s horse through negligent securing of the same. Farber v. Roginsky, 123 App. Div. 38. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of boxes not secured to wagon, causing team to run. Johnston v. Stevens, 123 App. Div. 208. Motion for new trial. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Horse frightened, backipg wagon off from bridge and over em- bankment approach. Wallace v. Town of New Albion, 121 App. Div. 66. Verdict, $5,000. Af- firmed. Horse frightened by steam roller precipitating plaintiff to ground. Winter v. City of Niagara Falls, 119 App. Div. 586. Demurrer. Reversed. Knocked down by horse while acting as flagman at grade crossing. Griffin v. Bell, 119 App. Div. 673. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 143 Horse—Continued Horse frightened at steam from stationary engine, running into plaintiff's horse causing injury. Munro v. Wells Bros. Co., 116 App. Div. 663. Judgment County Court for defendant, affirmed. Springing under whip of driver and throwing passenger from vehicle. Gunderson v. Eastern Brewing Co., 71 Mise. 519. Motion to set aside ver- dict for plaintiff and new trial. Horse frightened and running on pile of muck beside road, overturning vehicle. Guilmartin v. Solvay Process, 115 App. Div. 794. Order affirmed. Horse frightened by starting of car and running away injuring plaintiff. Hoag v. South Dover Marble Co., 50 Misc. 499. Appeal from County Court judgment. Motion to set aside verdict granted. Horse running away because of negligent management in vi- cinity of train causing injury. West v. Woodruff, 112 App. Div. 133. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Horse unattended in street, running away, colliding with hydrant causing injury. Gomey »v. City of N. Y., 102 App. Div. 259. Verdict, $950. Affirmed. Horse injured by catching foot in cobble stones while driving over highway. Shepard v. Bellew & Merritt Co., 101 App. Div. 257. Verdict, $225. Reversed. Horse frightened by fall of stick of wood along highway causing injury. Hoffart v. Town of West Turin, 90 App. Div. 348. Verdict, $500. Re- versed. Kicked by horse while attempting to rise. Roedecker v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 87 App. Div. 227. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. 144 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Horse—Continued Horse frightened by negligent driving of automobile. Maher v. Benedict, 123 App. Div. 579. Verdict, $150. Reversed. Horse driven on highway in night time running into obstruction and falling, throwing plaintiff and companion from the carriage. Tutt v. City of Rensselaer, 126 App. Div. 502. Verdict, $550. Affirmed. Child knocked down by horse and head crushed in street. Glederman »v. Curtis, 120 App. Div. 400. Verdict, $1,400. Reversed. Runaway horse in highway colliding with plaintiff’s vehicle. Tooker v. Fowler & Sellars Co., 147 App. Div. 164. County Court judgment for defendant, affirmed. Thrown against telephone pole near highway by horse running away. Bailey v. Bell Telephone Co., 147 App. Div. 224. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Horse running away frightened by odors and stone piles left by contractor along highway. Booth v. Town of Orleans, 147 App. Div. 240. Judgment for defendant affirmed on dismissal of complaint. Injury Injury causing delirium tremens and subsequent death. McCahill ». N. Y. Transportation Co., 185 App. Div. 322. Verdict, $5,500. Affirmed. Inspection Fall while inspecting ‘mill after accident. DeBock v. American Bridge Co., 131 App. Div. 480. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Insurance Injury from failure to properly perform burglar insurance con- tract. Silverblatt v. Brooklyn Telegraph & Messenger Co., 73 Misc. 38. Verdict, $408.38. Judgment on special verdict, directed. New trial denied. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 145 Landiord and Tenant Lessee falling on slippery stairway in theater. Mattson v. Phoenix Construction Co., 185 App. Div. 234. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Failure to light hallway causing injury. Baumler v. Wilm, 136 App. Div. 857. Verdict, $206: Municipal Court judgment, reversed. Breaking of hand rail on steps in front of house causing injury. Kane v. Williams, 140 App. Div. 857. Verdict, $150. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Defective door shut by wind, causing injury by breaking the glass. Ten Broeck v. Deinhardt, 120 App. Div. 473. Judgment Municipal Court for plaintiff, reversed. Fall of dumb waiter in tenement house by breaking of rope. Russo v. McLaughlin, 51 Misc. 34. Municipal Court judgment, for plaintiff, reversed. Injury to child of tenant by fall of grating over coal hole. Strobel v. Liebmann, 197 N. Y. 348. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 133 App. Div. 910. Tenant injured by stepping on drain cover, supporting earth having been washed away. Garrett v. Somerville, 98 App. Div. 206. Verdict, $4,750. Affirmed. Fall of railing of balcony in rear of tenement throwing decedent to the ground. Clarke v. Welsh, 93 App. Div. 398. Verdict, $4,000. Affirmed. Fall of tenant over partially concealed rubbish in yard. Wesener v. Smith, 89 App. Div. 211. Verdict, $750. Affirmed. Fall into sewer on leased premises through broken cover. Leaux v. City of N. Y., 87 App. Div. 398. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Falling on ice in stairway. Savarese v. Frankel, 130 App. Div. 464. Verdict, $1,250. Reversed. 146 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Landlord and Tenant—Continued Fall of tenant by teetering of beam on roof on which she stood. Decker v. Osterweil, 144 App. Div. 653. Municipal Court, judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Child falling over banister of stairway in tenement house. Thompson v. Leon, 144 App. Div. 919. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Fall of plaintiff’s wife on stairway from failure to provide lights. Schindler v. Welz & Zerweck, 145 App. Div. 532. Municipal Court judg- ment for defendant, affirmed. Thrown to ground by breaking of rail to veranda while leaning against it. Maslin v. Childs, 146 App. Div. 174. Motion for new trial granted. Tenant slipping on grape skin left in hallway of tenement house. Maringer v. Hill, 146 App. Div. 720. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Ladder Fall of ladder by breaking of wire against which it was placed for painting purposes. Gardner v. Westinghouse Electric & Gen. Mfg. Co., 141 App. Div. 5. Ver- dict, $2,500. Affirmed. Fall from tree, defective ladder pole. Trimbey v. Central N. Y. Telephone & Telegraph Co., 140 App. Div. 657. Verdict, $5,500. Reversed. Injury from falling from. Wynn v. Garlin, 135 App. Div. 795. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Injury by slipping and falling of ladder. Seredinski v. Balaban, 136 App. Div. 20. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Fall from ladder between floors in building caused by turning of a rung. Dougherty v. Weeks & Son, 126 App. Div. 786. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall from step ladder while plaintiff was painting. Kennedy v. N. Y. Telephone Co., 125 App. Div. 846. Verdict, $9,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 147 Ladder—Continued : 5 Warped ladder tipping throwing plaintiff. Smith v. Green Fuel Economizer Co., 123 App. Div. 672. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall of ladder due to sudden starting of machinery. Wolfinger v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 121 App. Div. 140. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall.of extension ladder precipitating plaintiff to the ground, causing injury. Hart v. Village of Clinton, 115 App. Div. 761. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Fall from ladder struck by passing tram car. Date v. N. Y. Glucose Co., 114 App. Div. 789. Verdict, $22,000. Reversed. Sudden falling of ladder on which plaintiff was standing causing injury. McNamara »v. City of N. Y., 143 App. Div. 939. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Ladder on which plaintiff was standing, breaking, causing injury. Davitt v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 106 App. Div. 567. Verdict, $550. Re- versed. Plaintiff caught in machinery by pushing of ladder on which he was standing. Date v. N. Y. Glucose Co., 104 App. Div. 207. Verdict, $20,000. Re- versed. Breaking of defective ladder causing decedent to fall on revolving shaft. McConell v. Norse Iron Works, 102 App. Div. 324. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Dismissing complaint. Breaking of defective ladder negligently selected for decedent to work upon. McConnell v. Morse I. W. & D. D. Co., 187 N. Y. 341. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmed. Reversing 110 App. Div. 920. Fall from ladder bending, the top not fastened. Greener v. Gen. Elec. Co., 147 App. Div. 462. Dismissal of complaint, re- versed. , 148 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Ladder—Continued Fall from step-ladder and through opening in floor of building under construction. Pulis v. Stewart, 75 Misc. 268. Verdict, $15,000. Motion granted setting aside verdict. Liability Liability of railroad company. Wirth v. General Railway Signal Co., 136 App. Div. 536. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Licensee Stepping in hole in stairway of dwelling. Stern v. Miller, 60 Misc. 103. Judgment Municipal Court. Hit by train while crossing track. Smetanka v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 123 App. Div. 323. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Fall of battering ram leaning against wall injuring licensee seek- ing employment. Cesar v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 45 Misc. 331. City Court judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Falling into excavation on land which licensee is using. Fox v. Warner Quinnlan Asphalt Co., 204 N. Y. 240. Dismissal of com- plaint affirmed. Reversing 139 App. Div. 807. Load Fall of load from truck which plaintiff was assisting to unload. Rogers v. Jones, 115 App. Div. 576. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall of bale of hay from car on door being opened injuring plain- tiff. Lewis v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R., 146 App. Div. 250. Verdict, $2,000. Re- versed. Looking Failure to look, hit by train while standing on track of tem- porary railroad. Wheeler v. Sundstrom & Stratton, 143 App. Div. 499. Verdict, $12,000. Reversed. : A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 149 Machinery, Breaking of Bursting of pulley causing injury. Kimball v. Odell & Eddy Co., 188 App. Div. 409. Verdict, $2,246. Re- versed. Break of rope causing injury from circular saw. Mosier v. Weil Haskell Co., 187 App. Div. 547. Appeal from judgment dlis- missing complaint. Breaking of glass while being polished on felt wheel cutting arm and causing injury, uncertainty as to cause of break. Goldstein v. Werhelovsky, 141 App. Div. 186. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. See Rupture. Employee pitched forward and catching hand in roller, by cleat being pulled off from board used for smoothing roller. MeMillan v. Minetto Shade Cloth Co., 134 App. Div. 28. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Fall of wooden pulley from shaft end caused by loosening bolt. Griffin v. Flank, 132 App. Div. 334. Municipal Court judgment dismissing complaint, reversed. Bursting of wooden pulley by excessive speed causing injury. Kimball y. Odell & Eddy Co., 131 App. Div. 542. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Hit in eye by piece of defective belting. Dittman v. Edison Electric [luminating Co., 125 App. Div. 691. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Breaking of belt in power house causing injury. Dittman v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 144 App. Div. 632. Verdict, $6,500. Reversed. Machinery, Children Injured by Hand of girl under 14 caught in machine and injured. Danaher v. American Mfg. Co., 126 App. Div. 385. Judgment of Municipal Court, affirmed. Child injured while working around dangerous machinery in violation of labor law. Lee v. Sterling Silk Mfg. Co., 115 App. Div. 589. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. 150 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Machinery, Children Injured by—Continued Child’s hand cut off at wrist by knives of cutting machine, cutting pads out of repair. Ceigler v. Hopper-Morgan Co., 90 App. Div. 379. Verdict, $1,068. Re- versed. Machinery, Caught in Caught in machinery. Smith v. Miliken, 200 N. Y. 21. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Affirm- ing, 133 App. Div. 903. Caught by key in revolving shaft. Clark v. International Paper Co., 1389 App. Div. 375. Dismissal of complaint reversed. Caught by set screw on shaft. Larsen v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 188 App. Div. 375. Verdict, $4,750. Re- versed. Catching arm in machine. Dresch v. Elliott, 137 App. Div. 252. Verdict, $17,500. Reversed. Injury to hand caught in cable by being jarred from platform by machinery. O’Hare v. O’Rourk Engineering Co., 185 App. Div. 348. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Hand caught in rollers rolling hot and sticky rubber. Matej v. India Rubber & Gutta Percha Insulating Co., 133 App. Div. 131. ‘ Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Fingers caught in rollers of machinery and two fingers injured, afterwards amputated. * Millerick v. Wing, 133 App. Div. 453. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Right hand caught in rollers, and left hand also caught while attempting to disengage right. Degan v. Gutta Percha & Rubber Mfg. Co., 131 App. Div. 101. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. Hand caught between rollers and drum in paper mill. Evans v. Eastman Kodak Co., 129 App. Div. 768. Verdict, $7,974. Re- versed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 151 Machinery, Caught in—Continued Hand caught in rollers of machine while leaning over machine. Burke v. International Paper Co., 128 App. Div. 680. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmed. Hand caught in machine. Greco v. Pratt Chuck Co., 127 App. Div. 798. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Hand caught by travelling crane. Laplaca v. Lake Shore M. 8. R. R., 127 App. Div. 848. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Foot crushed by steam crane coming upon plaintiff. Palmieri v. 8S. Pearson & Son, Incorporated, 128 App. Div. 231. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Hand caught in power stamping press and injured. Steinberg v. Bender & Sons, 125 App. Div. 564. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Caught in machinery cog wheels causing injury. Lester v. Crabtree, 125 App. Div. 617. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Hand caught between rollers of paper machine causing injury. Scott v. International Paper Co., 125 App. Div. 318. Verdict, $1,375. Re- versed. Hair catching in revolving shaft. Kirwan vr. American Lithographic Co., 124 App. Div. 180. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Hair caught by revolving shaft in machine. Civetti vr. American Hatters & Furriers Corp., 124 App. Div. 345. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Thumb cut off in button machine while working on machine. Kaplan v. Sher, 56 Misc. 432. City Court order denying motion for bill of particulars, denied. Fingers caught in sausage machine while operating it. Fortune v. Hall, 122 App. Div. 250. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Caught by belt, and drawn over shaft on failure of foreman to stop engine. Guilmartin v. Solvay Process Co., 189 N. Y. 490. Reversing order reversing judgment for plaintiff. Reversing 115 App. Div. 794. 152 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Machinery, Caught in—Continued Hand drawn into knives of planing machine. Neumeiler v. Central Brewing Co. of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 101. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Caught in unguarded shaft of engine. Poole v. American Linseed Co., 119 App. Div. 136. Verdict, $2,000. Af- firmed. Hand caught in revolving knives of planing machine while re- placing hood. Smith v. Wessel Mfg. Co., 117 App. Div. 834. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Fingers caught in putty machine. Meigel v. Crandall Oil & Putty Mfg. Co., 141 App. Div. 828. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Hand injured while cutting rubber obstructing rollers of machine.. Roche v. India Rubber, etc., Co., 115 App. Div. 582. Verdict, $250. Re- versed. Caught in belt of machine and thrown against shaft. Guilmartin v. Solvay Process Co., 115 App. Div. 794. Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered. Hand injured on working table. Tannhauser v. Uptegrove & Brother, 114 App. Div. 764. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Foot slipping on oil spot and drawn into unguarded pulley belt. Johnson v. Onondaga Paper Co., 112 App. Div. 667. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Hand drawn into machine while waxing rollers. Lynch v. Shanley Co., 1#2 App. Div. 304. Verdict, $6,500. Reversed. Hand crushed between revolving rollers of machine when tend- ing same. Makin v. Pettebone Cataract Paper Co., 111 App. Div. 726. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed. Caught by unguarded set screw in revolving shaft when stepping over same. Walker v. Newton Falls Paper Co., 111 App. Div. 19. Verdict, $5,000. Judgment modified and affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 153 Machinery, Caught in—Continued Hand caught in cogs when cleaning machine. Fish v. Utica Steam & Mohawk Valley Co., 109 App. Div. 326. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Arm caught around revolving shaft and crushed. Thayer v. Utica Knitting Co., 183 N. Y. 18. Affirming judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Coming in contact with wheels of machine causing death. Wilson v. N. Y. Mills, 107 App. Div. 99. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Clothing caught by revolving shaft while working near it, caus- ing injuries. Dillon v. National Coal Tar Co., 181 N. Y., 215. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Hand caught by machine and drawn between rollers. Keating v. Coon, 102 App. Div. 112. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Thumb caught in electrical meat cutting machine and fingers cut off. Voegele v. Bardusch, 98 App. Div. 127. Verdict, $1,250. Reversed. Hand caught between rollers in knitting mill. Sitts v. Waiontha Knitting Co., 94 App. Div. 38. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Clothing caught in revolving shaft causing injury. Huff v. American Fire Engine Co., 88 App. Div. 324. Motion for new trial. Finger caught between rollers of machine causing injury. Collins v. Waterbury Co., 144 App. Div. 670. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Hand caught in feed roller of planing machine. Campbell v. Kertscher & Co., 146 App. Div. 384. Verdict, $12,000. Re- versed. Fingers of hand caught between rollers of paper machine. Scott v. International Paper Co., 204 N. Y. 49. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Hand caught by starting of machine at which plaintiff was working. Colelli v. Turner, 147 App. Div. 29. Verdict, $5,500. Reversed. 154 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Machinery, Caught in—Continued Servant caught by set pin of piston rod while oiling pump. In- ability to see from improper lighting. Connor v. Acme Engineering & Construction Co., 148 App. Div. 518. Judg- ment for defendant reversed. Machinery; Injuries resulting from negligence of Co-employees. Hand caught in punching press through negligence of fellow workman. Ladiew v. Sherwood Metal Working Co., 125 App. Div. 65. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Superintendent jerking belt in putting it on machine injuring plaintiff. Kujava v. Irving, 122 App. Div. 375. Verdict, $12,500. Reversed. Operator of lathe injured by breaking apart of machine imper- fectly tempered by employee. Kaplan v. Sher, 56 Misc. 432, Municipal Court judgment order setting aside verdict, affirmed. Failure to adjust block under windlass and improper interfer- ence with it by co-employee causing injury. McQueen v. Delaware Lackawanna & W. R. R., 102 App. Div. 195. Verdict, $700. Reversed. Hit by iron rod dropped by co-employee repairing defective machinery. Koszlowski v. American Locomotive Co., 96 App. Div. 40. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Struck by moving parts of machine while repairing same, caused by negligence of fellow servant. Wesel v. Powers Co., 147App. Div. 167. Verdict, $800. Reversed. Fall of bucket of steam shovel caused by fellow servant hitting lever, while adjusting a rope. Impellizzieri v. Cranford, 148 App. Div. 755. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Machinery, Defective Defective pulley bearings becoming heated. McMichael v. Federal Printing Co., 139 App. Div. 225. Verdict, $30,000. Affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 155 Machinery, Defective—Continued Defective machine being repaired, injury from slipping of belt on loose pulley. Girshoff v. Marx & Jacobson, 140 App. Div. 886. Verdict, $175. Municipal Court order setting aside verdict, reversed. Defective clamp connection with carrying crane. Porter v. American Bridge Co., 127 App. Div. 1. Verdict, $2,650. Af- firmed. Warped ladder tipping, throwing plaintiff. Smith v. Green Feed Economizer Co., 123 App. Div. 672. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Buzz saw caused to wobble by defective boards, causing injury. Reich v. Iron Clad Manufacturing Co., 120 App. Div. 445. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Hand caught in machine by sudden motion of machine caused by defective bolt. Loughlin v. Brassil, 187 N. Y. 128. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Re- versing 102. App. Div. 617. Defect in setting up machinery. Swarts v. Wilson Mfg. Co., 115 App. Div. 739. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Hand crushed by defective machine becoming suddenly out of order. Hughes v. Russell, 104 App. Div. 144. Verdict, $1,200. Reversed. Fingers coming in contact with revolving knife in cloth cutting machine on defective table, causing injury. Braunberg v. Solomon, 102 App. Div. 330. Verdict, $2,750. Affirmed. Child’s hand cut off at wrist by knives of cutting machine, cutting pads out of repair. Ceigler v. Hopper Morgan Co., 90 App. Div. 379. Verdict, $1,068. Re- versed. Land roller running over employee due to defects in machine. Kuelling v. Roderick Lean Mfg. Co., 88 App. Div. 309. Verdict, $3,040. Reversed. 156 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Machinery, Defective—Continued Fingers cut off by band saw leaving wheel. Ryan v. Hawk & Wetherbee, 139 App. Div. 693. Verdict, $1,500. Re- versed. Sudden starting of machine injuring plaintiff. Ramsay v. Arbuckle, 147 App. Div. 685. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Tripper car used with conveyor belt for building materials, leaving track, causing servant to fall. Giovagioli v. Fort Orange Construction Co., 148 App. Div. 489. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Machinery, Falling Into Accidental slipping and putting arm on machine. Beckstein v. Central Star Laundry, 140 App. Div. 8. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Reversing, 128 App. Div. 733. Slipping on floor and thrusting hand in uncovered machine. Martin v. Walker & Williams Mfg. Co., 198 N. Y. 324. Order, reversed. Slipping on oiled floor and falling in machine. Welch »v. Waterbury & Co., 136 App. Div. 315. Verdict, $7,000. Reversed. Slipping near machine and having arm caught in machine. Martin v. Walker & Williams Mfg. Co., 128 App. Div. 733. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Slipping and falling into machine while holding stick caught in roller. Zajdack v. Lisbon Falls Fibre Co., 127 App. Div. 206. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Thrown on unguarded belt of fly wheel. Hartman v. Berlin & Jones Envelope Co., 71 Misc. 30. Motion to set aside verdict, denied. Falling from platform and catching foot in fly wheel. * King v. Reid, 124 App. Div. 121. Verdict, $1,750. Reversed. Slipping on floor and falling on to machinery. Martin v. Walker & Williams Mfg. Co., 122 App. Div. 280. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 157 Machinery, Falling Into—Continued Falling on to knives while extracting fiber from machine. McGrath v. Fibre Conduit Co., 122 App. Div. 424. Verdict, $3,000. Re- versed. ; Falling and catching hair in machine. Schalk v. Commercial Twine Co., 122 App. Div. 521. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. ; Caught in cog wheels of machine by falling on slippery floor. Loughran v. Mott Iron Works, 122 App. Div. 595. Verdict, $7,000. Re- versed. Plaintiff caught in machine by pushing of ladder on which he was standing. Date v. N. Y. Glucose Co., 104 App. Div. 207. Verdict, $20,000. Reversed. Employee thrown upon shaft by holding plate for purpose of repairs. Scialo v. Steffens, 105 App. Div. 592. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed Fall on slippery floor catching fingers in machine causing injury. Welch v. Waterbury Co., 144 App. Div. 213. Dismissal of complaint. Af- firmed. Tripping over concealed nails in sawmill floor and thrusting hand on unguarded saw. Finkle v. Bolton Landing Lumber Co., 148 App. Div. 500. Judgment for defendant reversed. Machinery, Hit by Objects Thrown from Hit by load carried by trolley wire when on premises as cus- tomer. Rosenthal v. United Dressed Beef Co., 52 Misc. 166. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Hit by block of wood thrown from shaping machine. Swarts v. Wilson Mfg. Co., 115 App. Div. 739. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. : Struck by end of belt which broke after repairing. Radley v. Shopiro, 114 App. Div. 659. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. 158 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Machinery, Hit by Objects thrown from—Continued Hit by flying chip from drop forge hammer. Paul v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 118 App. Div. 515. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Hit by knife flying out of molding planer by breaking of bolt. Moran v. Mulligan, 110 App. Div. 208. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Hit by broken crank handle of machine set in motion by a jar. Hazzard v. State of New York, 108 App. Div. 119. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissing plaintiff’s claim. Hit by flying piece of defective belt injuring plaintiff’s eye. Dittman v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 87 App. Div. 68. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. , Machinery, Failure to Instruct Injury from defective machinery and no instructions. Higgins v. Erie R. R., 140 App. Div. 222. Order denying motion for bill of particulars, reversed. Machinery, Sudden Starting of Sudden starting of motor causing injury. Kirkover v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 184 App. Div. 792. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Plaintiff injured by sudden starting of machinery. Keenan v. McAdams & Cartright El. Co., 58 Misc. 371. Motion for new trial by defendant, denied. Plaintiff’s hand caught by sudden starting of machine while cleaning. Bovi v. Hess, 123 App. Div. 389. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Caught while putting belt on pulley by sudden starting of pulley. -Gallagher v. Newman, 190 N. Y. 444. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall from ladder due to sudden starting of machinery. Wolfinger v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 121 App. Div. 140. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 159 Machinery, Sudden Starting of—Continued Sudden starting of spinning machine which plaintiff was re- pairing, causing injury. Durkos v. Chelsea Jute Mills, 120 App. Div. 561. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Injuries received from starting gas engine, requiring amputa- tion of arm. Tivnan v. Keahon, 117 App. Div. 50. Verdict, $8,700. Affirmed. Sudden starting of machinery by negligent act of incompetent employee causing injury. Burnos v. American Sugar Refining Co., 107 App. Div. 286. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Starting machine while being repaired causing injury. Austin v. Fisher Tanning Co., 96 App. Div. 550. Verdict, $3,000. Re- versed. Arm cut off by circular saw starting while oiling machinery. Brodsky v. Kronenberg, 145 App. Div. 594. Verdict, $8,000. Reversed. Machinery, Unguarded Injury caused by safety roller being removed. Travis v. Haan, 128 App. Div. 77. Verdict, $7,500. Affirmed. Injured from unguarded machine. Hurley v. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co., 188 App. Div. 642. Verdict, $11,000. Reversed. Revolving shaft not guarded, catching hair, causing injury. Kirwan v. American Lithographic Co., 197 N. Y. 413. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Unguarded set screw in shaft catching clothing. Wittmer », Fairhurst, 134 App. Div. 305. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Hand of employee caught while looking for tools on a rail un- guarded on which trolley ran. Wynkoop v. Ludlow Valve Mfg. Co., 196 N. Y.324. Affirmative of judg- ment for plaintiff reversed. Reversing 126 App. Div. 959. 160 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Machinery, Unguarded—Continued Hand caught in cog wheel of machinery unguarded. Lee v. Sterling Silk Mfg. Cay 134 App. Div. 123. Judgment for defendant on verdict, affirmed. Slipping while oiling machine and caught in machine and injured, cross head being unguarded. Fluker v. Zeigele Brewing Co., 201 N. Y. 40. Judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. Reversing, 136 App. Div. 945 of 445. Hand cut by travelling crane. Browne v. Pratt & Letchworth, 127 App. Div. 859. Verdict, $1,600. Re- versed. Unguarded knives of joiner injuring workman. Graves v. Stickley Co., 125 App. Div. 132. Verdict, $200. Affirmed. Arm caught in unguarded cogs while seeking to avoid falling stone. Perrotta v, Richmond Brick Co., 123 App. Div. 626. Verdict, $10,100. Affirmed. Unguarded rod of machine catching plaintiff’s hair causing in- jury. Sullivan v. Schweinler, 142 App. Div. 940. Judgment Municipal Court, reversed. Unsafe unguarded machine injuring infant employed without certificate required by labor law. Kenyon v. Sanford Mfg. Co., 119 App. Div. 570. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Caught in unguarded shaft of engine. Poole v. American Linsged Co., 119 App. Div. 136. Verdict, $2,000. Af- firmed. ; Hand caught in roller of machine, no guards on machine. Severson v. Hill-Warner Fitch Co., 116 App. Div. 108. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Hand caught by stumbling and placing it on unguarded track of travelling crane. Wynkoop v. Ludlow Valve Mfg. Co., 112 App. Div. 729. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 161 Machinery, Unguarded—Continued Failure to guard revolving knives of planing machine, belt not properly adjusted. Hoyt v. Davis Mfg. Co., 112 App. Div. 755. Verdict, $600. Reversed. Omission to replace guard rail, removed to make repairs, causing injury. Pinsdorf v. Kellogg & Co., 108 App. Div. 209. Judgment for defendant. Reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Hand caught in unguarded cogs of paper machine. McManus ». St. Regis Paper Co., 107 App. Div. 29. Verdict, $5,400. Re- versed. ‘ Clothing caught by unguarded set screw on shaft while repairing machine. Walker v. Newton Falls Paper Co., 99 App. Div. 47. Order setting aside verdict, affirmed. a Finger cut off by knives of planing machine while operating without adjusting guards. Klein v. Garvey, 94 App. Div. 183. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dis- missal of complaint. Hand caught in machine, guards becoming detached. Mandy v. Schleicher Co., 142 App. Div. 23. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Fingers caught in cogs not protected by guards. Stevens v. Gair, 109 App. Div. 621. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Falling into unguarded machinery in dimly lighted passageway. Fitzgerald v. Newton Falls Paper Co., 204 N. Y. 184. Judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Reversing, 139 App. Div. 922. Hit by unguarded belt of machine while examining mill ma- chinery. Hubbel v. Pioneer Paper Co., 147 App. Div. 339. Judgment for defendant on dismissal of complaint, reversed. ‘ Machinery, Miscellaneous Injured by circular saw. Varson v. Standard Refrigerator Co., 188 App. Div. 723. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. 162 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Machinery, Miscellaneous—Continued Injury from punching machine. Pirolo v. Hinkle, 137 App. Div. 268. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Injury caused by punching press. Decora v. American Carbide Co., 186 App. Div. 52. Verdict, $1,000. Re- versed. Injured by being thrown against saw while cutting long boards on short table. Finkstein v. Kramer, 133 App. Div. 565. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Failure to warn or apprise plaintiff of the conditions by which he was caught in machinery. Lucas v. International Paper Co., 131 App. Div. 368. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Injury by crane running over plaintiff’s foot while standing on beam. Young v. Bradley & Son, 129 App. Div. 678. Verdict, $1,000. Affirmed. Fingers crushed by fall of die in press. Jones v. Kroder & Reubel Co., 95 App. Div. 140. Verdict, $2,500. Re- versed. Injury by frazing machine; defective material. Cooper v. Jordan, 135 App. Div. 718. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Cut by knife suddenly descending in button hole machine. McMahon »v. Schneer’s Sons & Co., 146 App. Div. 742. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Merchant and Merchandise ? Sale of goods, needle in garment causing injury. Garvey v. Namm, 136 App. Div. 815. Verdict, $222. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Fall of customer on stairway in store. Weller v. Consolidated Gas Co., 198 N. Y. 98. Judgment for plaintiff re- versed. Reversing, 128 App. Div. 924. Damage for non-delivery of goods. Simonoff v. Fox, 46 Misc. 249. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 163 Mines Fall of mine roof, it being of dangerous formation. Arras v. Standard Plaster Co., 121 App. Div. 61. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Mining Shaft Fall in mining shaft by breaking of cable. Owen v. Retsof Mining Co., 102 App. Div. 130. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. Municipal Corporations Injured from driving into mound of earth in street in the night time. Buckley v. City of N. Y., 1385 App. Div. 512. Verdict, $650. Reversed. Municipal corporations, obstructions in street, injury from trip- ping over obstruction. Powers v. Mechanicsville, 140 App. Div. 885. Verdict, $150. Reversed. Loose piece of stone lying on side walk at street crossing causing plaintiff to trip over it causing injuries. Moriarty v. City of N. Y., 132 App. Div. 10. Verdict, $556. Affirmed. Damages by flow of surface water over improved street. Jung v. City of N. Y., 182 App. Div. 18. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Stepping into hole in side walk. Carson v. Village of Dresden, 129 App. Div. 728. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Fall on side walk by accumulated ice and snow. Winckler v. City of New York, 129 App. Div. 45. Verdict, $7,150. Re- versed. Obstruction left by city at entrance to church causing child to fall. Hunton »v. Village of Peekskill, 119 App. Div. 500. Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of County Court, reversed. Pedestrian falling into pond along highway from failure to guard banks of pond. Brennan v. Trustees of Village of Bath, 143 App. Div. 740. Reversing County Court judgment for defendant. 164 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Municipal Corporations—Continued Closing sewer causing surface water to injure adjoining premises. Brennan v. City of Albany, 143 App. Div. 752. Dismissal 6f complaint, reversed. Overflow of surface water on plaintiff’s premises by raising grade of street. Miles v. City of Brooklyn, 98 App. Div. 195. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Stepping into hole in paved city street on alighting from car at night. Miller v. City of N. Y., 104 App. Div. 33. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Employee laying water mains, injured by horse being driven into ditch. Boston v. Abraham, 91 App. Div. 417. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Pedestrian on street hit by falling limb of tree. McGarey »v. City of N. Y., 89 App. Div. 500. Order setting verdict aside, reversed. ‘ Injury by defective side walk. Kelley v. City of New York, 129 App. Div. 658. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Damages by flow of water from broken hydrant. Frank v. City of Rome, 125 App. Div. 141. Appeal from order of County Court, affirmed. Explosion of dynamite stored in street, injuring hotel of abutting owner. Smyth v. City of N. Y., 203 N. Y. 106. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. 128 App. Div. 463, modified. * Passenger on street car injured while riding over bridge. Dilluvio v. City of N. Y., 73 Misc. 122. Motion to set aside verdict. Falling into man hole in public park, cover being removed. Thomas ». City of N. Y., 146 App. Div. 512. Dismissal of complaint, af- firmed. Fall on street crossing where ice and snow had accumulated. Dupont v. Viilage of Port Chester, 204 N. Y. 351. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing 138 App. Div. 924. ; A NEGLIGENCE OF DIGEST CASES—FACTS 165 Municipal Corporations—Continued ; Child run over by ash cart owned by city. Dooling v. City of N. Y., 148 App. Div. 713. Judgment for defendant; affirmed. Horse injured by stepping on ridge of ice in city street and falling, causing injury. Loretz v. City of N. Y., 148 App. Div. 721. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Pedestrian stumbling over bars of an awning in front of theater. Harman ». City of N. Y., 148 App. Div. 61. Verdict, $1,250. Reversed. Negotiable Instruments Alteration of instrument, negligence in filling out blanks. National Exchange Bank of Albany v. Lester, 119 App. Div. 786, Judgment affirmed. Orders Failure to obey orders causing head-on collision killing fireman. Butler v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg R. R. Co., 142 App. Div. 282. Verdict, $7,500. Affirmed. Overflow of Surface Water Overflow of surface water on plaintiff's premises by raising grade of street. Miles v. City of Brooklyn, 98 App. Div. 195. Dismissal of complaint, re- versed. Passengers Alighting from Car Injured by Car on Adjoining Track. Passenger alighting from street car injured by car going in op- posite direction. VanDenbout v. Rochester R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 844. Motion for new trial, exceptions sustained. Passenger alighting from one car struck by car on adjoining track. Maynard v. Rochester R. R. Co., 186 App. Div. 212. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. 166 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Passengers Alighting from Car Injured by Car on Adjoining Track—Continued Passenger on street railroad alighting from car falling on bank of snow piled up by road. Speck v. International R. R., 1383 App. Div. 802. Verdict, $1,600. Reversed. Passenger alighting from car at night passing behind car, struck by car on opposite track. Axelrod v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 87. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Passenger on street car passing behind car struck by car on op- posite track. Reed v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 180 N. Y. 315. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Passenger alighting from and passing behind car struck by an- other car on opposite track. Reed v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 87 App. Div. 427. Verdict, $650. Affirmed. Passenger alighting and passing behind car struck by car on opposite track. Beers v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 88 App. Div. 9. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Passengers Injured While Attempting to Alight Thrown from car and injured by attempting to alight before car had stopped, and suddenly moving forward. Dwyer v. Auburn & Syracuse Elec. R. R., 131 App. Div. 477. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. ® Fall from car by sudden starting of, while alighting. Blair v. Brooklyn Queens Co. R. R., 141 App. Div. 843. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Thrown by sudden starting of car when preparing to alight. Millar v. N. Y. City R. R., 124 App. Div. 192. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Injured by stepping from car while in motion. MeNeece v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 123 App. Div. 830. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 167 Passengers Injured While Attempting to Alight—Continued Car starts while passenger alighting and stepping on slippery platform causing fall. Randazzo v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 121 App. Div. 573. Verdict, $250. Affirmed. Jumping from car by order of motorman in presence of appre- hended danger. Grunfilder ». Brooklyn Heights R. R., 143 App. Div. 89. Verdict, $3,500 Affirmed. Thrown from car while alighting by sudden starting of train. Wolford v. N. Y. Central R. R., 118 App. Div. 553. Verdict, $2,000. Af- firmed. Passenger thrown to street by sudden starting of street car when trying to alight. Murray v. Interurban St. R. R., 118 App. Div. 35. Verdict, $6,000. Re- versed. Falling or thrown down by stepping into hole on alighting from surface car. Miller v. International R..R., 52 Mise. 344. Judgment of Municipal Court of Buffalo, affirmed. Thrown off platform of car by sudden starting when attempting to alight. Kleffman v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 116 App. Div. 334. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Falling on alighting from train by conductor withdrawing sup- port while assisting. Hanlon v. Central R. R. of N. J., 187 N. Y. 73. Judgment appellate divi- sion for plaintiff, affirmed. Injured while alighting from car, causing fall.. Mackey »v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 467. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Stepping into depression in pavement when alighting from car. Sheehan v. Nassau Electric R. R., 143 App. Div. 621. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. 168 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Passengers Injured While Attempting to Alight—Continued Fall from car by starting of car while plaintiff was attempting to alight. Weiller v. N. Y. City R. R., 51 Misc. 668. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Jumping from step of car which had stopped at, plaintiff’s home station. Truesdell v. Erie R. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 34. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Fall of passenger by sudden starting of car when preparing to alight from street car. Scheuv. Union R. R. Co., of N. Y. City, 112 App. Div. 239. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Thrown to ground while alighting from car by sudden starting of car. Maurer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 110 App. Div. 36. (Mem.) County Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Thrown to ground by sudden starting of car when about to alight. O’Brien v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 109 App. Div. 833. County Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Thrown to street by sudden starting of car when preparing to alight. Murphy »v. Union R. R. Co., 47 Misc. 672. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Alighting from street car and catching foot in fender while pass- ing in front of it. Poland v. United Traction Co., 107 App. Div. 561. Verdict, $800. Re- versed. « Alighting from car thrown to the ground by sudden starting of car. Vonderahe v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 109 App. Div. 28. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Passenger thrown down by sudden starting of street car when about to alight. Raynor v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 106 App. Div. 449. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 169 Passengers Injured While Attempting to Alight—Continued Thrown from car while alighting therefrom by starting of train from station. Dunne v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 99 App. Div. 571. Order denying motion to set aside verdict, reversed. Passenger. on street car injured by sudden starting of car while attempting to alight. Leonard v. Union R. R. of N. Y. City, 98 App. Div. 204. Verdict, $2,000. Affirmed. Passenger on car injured by sudden starting of car while alight- ing. Gunther v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 45 Misc. 117. Motion to set aside ver- dict granted. ‘Passenger thrown to ground by sudden starting of car while alighting. McDonough ». 3rd Ave. R. R., 95 App. Div. 311. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Thrown to ground while alighting from car. Maloney v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 95 App. Div. 393. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Thrown to ground by sudden starting of car while alighting there- from. Higgins v. United Traction Co., 96 App. Div. 69. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Fall of plaintiff and passenger into a hole along side of track. Holzhauser v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 43 Misc. 145. Motion on minutes to set aside verdict. Passenger on car injured by sudden starting of car while alight- ing. Bente v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 90 App. Div. 213. Verdict, $3,000. Af- firmed. Passenger on car about to transfer, injured by sudden starting of car. Gillespie ». Yonkers R. R., 87 App. Div. 38. ‘Judgment for defendant, reversed. 170 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Passengers Attempting to Board Caught by approaching car and injured when attempting to board street car. Christensen v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 134 App. Div. 103. Dismissing, complaint, reversed. Slipping between car and platform while boarding car. Smith v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 129 App. Div. 635. Verdict, $500. Re- versed. Thrown to ground by sudden starting of car while attempting to board. Woods v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 128 App. Div. 235. Verdict, $25,000. Reversed. Passenger knocked off from running board of car by another car while trying to get on. Kriedermacker v. Union R. R., 59 Misc. 410. Motion for reargument of motion for new trial, denied. Dragged by street car while attempting to board car. Johnson v. N. Y. City R. R., 120 App. Div. 456. Judgment of Municipal Court, reversed. While attempting to board car, thrown by sudden starting of car. Schwartz v. N. Y. City R. R., 55 Misc. 214. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Falling from car by sudden starting while attempting to board. Klein v. Interurban St. R. R., 55 Misc. 211. Judgment for defendant, re- versed. ° Attempting to board car and directed to take another car, pushed against dash board sustaining injury. Ferris v. Interurban St. R. R., 89 App. Div. 361. Municipal Court judg- ment for plaintiff, affirmed. Fall of passenger by sudden starting of car when attempting to board. Egg v. Rochester R. R. Co., 115, App. Div. 804. Verdict, $300. Re- versed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 171 Passengers Attempting to Board—Continued Fall from step of moving car when attempting to board after door was closed. Sheehan v. Nassau Elec. St. R. R., 143 App. Div. 621. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Injured by sudden starting of car while attempting to board same. Fischel v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 113 App. Div. 116. Order setting aside verdict and granting new trial. Foot caught between moving train and platform when boarding train. Brown v. Manhattan R. R., 105 App. Div. 395. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Thrown down by sudden starting of car when boarding same. Hanan v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 103 App. Div. 402. Verdict, $3,150. Reversed. Thrown down by sudden starting of car when about to board car. Wimmer v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 92 App. Div. 258. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. Passenger slipping on oil on railroad station platform at night causing injury. Barnes v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R., 42 Misc. 622. Motion for non-suit denied. Falling from car by sudden starting of car while boarding. Doering v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 42 Misc. 192. City Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Fall from train of cars when attempting to board. Carmody v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 146 App. Div. 400. Verdict, $40,000. Reversed. Passengers Falling from Cars Pushed off from over-crowded car. . Knaisch v. Joline, 1388 App. Div. 854. Dismissal of complaint. Passenger on railroad pushed from running board by conductor. McGrath v. Nassau Electric R. R., 128 App. Div. 63. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. 172 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Passengers Falling from Cars—Continued Boy on front of crowded car pushed off by motion of driver. Dubnow v. N. Y. City R. R., 123 App. Div. 723. Verdict, $2,500. Re- versed. Passenger thrown from running board of car by sudden starting of car. , Sheppard v. N. Y. City R. R., 56 Misc. 639. Verdict, $1,591.25. Affirmed. Standing on lower step of train thrown off by sudden movement of train. Winchell v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R., 121 App. Div. 52: Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Thrown off running board of car by conductor. Tourtelotte v. Westchester Electric R. R., 120 App. Div. 417. Verdict, $200. Reversed. Thrown to the street by sudden starting of car by signal of con- ductor. Keenan v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 118 App. Div. 56. Verdict, $1,000. Re- versed. Thrown from platform of car on approaching curve at rapid speed. Ludinsky v. N. Y. City R. R., 53 Mise. 572. Dismissal of complaint, re- versed. Falling from platform of car by sudden siarting of car. Kleffman v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 116 App. Div. 334. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Falling off platform ef street car by opening gate against which he was leaning. Englehardt v. N. Y. City R. R., 52 Misc. 474. Judgment of Municipal Court, reversed. Thrown, pushed or jumping from car during panic caused by fire. Fanizzi v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 113 App. Div. 440. County Court judgment for defendant, affirmed. Falling from car and struck by express truck. Gray v. Weir, 113 App. Div. 479. Judgment for defendant, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 173 Passengers Falling from Cars—Continued Thrown from car while standing on running board. Mullane v. N. Y. City R. R., 51 Misc. 24. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Falling from moving car when standing on front platform by sudden jerk of car. Kleffman v. Dry Dock & East Broadway R. R. Co., 104 App. Div. 416. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Pushed or falling between cars while riding on platform, causing injury. : Kohn v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 104 App. Div. 237. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Thrown from car by sudden loosening of brake while standing on front platform. McLaughlin v. Interurban St. R. R., 101 App. Div. 134. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Dismissal of complaint. In excitement of accident, jumping or thrown from car. Stern v. Westchester Electric R. R., 99 App. Div. 491. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Thrown from car during excitement from fire caused by fuse blowing out. Williams v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 97 App. Div. 133. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Passenger on car pushed or jumping from car in fire on car. Dorff v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 95 App. Div. 82. Judgment for defendant reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Thrown from car by sudden starting of car striking pillar of station sustaining injuries. Brand v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 89 App. Div. 188. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Passenger thrown from car while passing around curve. Gatens v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 89 App. Div. 311. Verdict, $15,000. Affirmed. On running board of car thrown off by sudden jerk of car. Sheeron v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R., 89 App. Div. 388. Verdict, $4,000. Affirmed. 174 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Passengers Falling from Cars—Continued Fall of passenger on running board of car by jumping motion of car. Moskowitz v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 89 App. Div. 425. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Passenger Injured by Sudden Starting of Car Passenger of street railroad thrown to ground by sudden starting of car when partly on the car. Hirchberg v. Brooklyn & Queens Co. R. R., 134 App. Div. 629. Appeal - from order granting new trial, affirmed. Passenger on street car thrown from car which had stopped, by the sudden starting of the car while getting off. Olson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 183 App. Div. 445. Verdict, $700. Af- firmed. ; Thrown down by sudden starting of car. Lumsden v. Thompson Scenic R. R., 130 App. Div. 209. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Reversing, 122 App. Div. 896. Thrown to ground in alighting from street car. Reuter v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 141 App. Div. 669. Municipal Court * judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Passenger on street car injured while alighting by car failing to stop. McGrane v. Nassau Electric R. R., 134 App. Div. 257. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall of passenger in car by sudden starting of car before reaching seat. Morrow v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 119 App. Div. 22. Verdict, $500. Affirmed. Passenger on street car thrown to ground by sudden starting of car. Carey v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 124 App. Div. 524. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Falling by sudden starting of car when about: to enter. Schierloh v. Interurban St. R. R., 115 App. Div. 455. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 175 Passenger Injured by Sudden Starting of Car—Continued Fall of passenger by sudden starting of car, no hold strap avail- able. Butler v. N. Y. City R. R., 109 App. Div. 658. Municipal Court order denying defendant’s motion to set aside, reversed. About to transfer on car injured by sudden starting of car. Gillespie v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 87 App. Div. 38. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Passengers Injured in Collision Between Cars Passenger on railroad in subway injured by collision. Vickery v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 126 App. Div. 781. Appeal from order of Supreme Court, reversed. Passenger on street car recelving injury by collision between car and another car at street crossing. Levine v. Brooklyn & Queens Co. R. R., 134 App. Div. 606. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Standing on rear platform caused to fall by collision and sus- taining injuries. _ McCormick v. Rochester R. R., 133 App. Div. 760. Verdict, $12,958.331/s.. Affirmed. Passenger on rear platform of railroad car having foot crushed by rear car over-riding forward car. Johnson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 183 App. Div. 252. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Injured by collision between cars while on car. Giltman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 129 App. Div. 654. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Injured by collision between cars. Miehlke v. Nassau Electric R. R., 129 App. Div. 438. Verdict, $6,250. Affirmed. Collision of one car with another on railroad. Brundage v. Fonda-Johnstown s Gloversville R. R., 127 App. Div. 475. Verdict, $500. Reversed. 176 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Passenger Injured by Sudden Starting of Car—Continued Passenger on trolley car injured by train backing into car at railroad crossing. Rex v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R., 146 App. Div. 905. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Injury to passenger by collision of trolley cars. McLaughlin & Daniels v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 147 App. Div. 932. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Passengers Injured While on Cars Passenger on car injured by electric shock. Endres v. International R. R., 129 App. Div. 785. Verdict, $575. Re- versed. Passenger on street car injured by fall of bridge while on car. People v. Syracuse Rapid Transit, 129 App..Div. 800. Judgment for de- fendant, affirmed. Thrown down by starting of car before reaching seat. McGlynn v. Nassau Electric R. R., 128 App. Div. 866. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Passenger injured by sudden closing of door by starting of train. Goold v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 59 Mise. 36. Motion to set aside verdict granted. Stepping into space between car step and platform. Woolsey v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 123 App. Div. 631. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Standing on running board hit by beam in fence along excava- tion. Kramer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 190 N. Y.:310. Judgment Municipal Court, reversed. Hit by trolley wheel flying off front of trolley car and passing through transom window. Kehoe v. International R. R. Co., 56 Misc. 138. Motion for new trial denied. Verdict, $1,500. Passenger in box car injured by slipping of strut in pushing car from switch. Wilson v. D. L. & W. R. R., 119 App. Div. 675. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 177 Passengers Injured While on Cars—Continued Injured by derailment of car going into ditch. Braun v. Union R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 566. Judgment Municipal Court for defendant, reversed. Injured by breaking of guard wire injured by shock caused by contact with hood of car. Dean v. Tarrytown White Plains & M. R. R., 113 App. Div. 487. Verdict, $1,375. Reversed. Injured by door closed on his hand by conductor. Moses Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit R. R., 113 App. Div. 577. Munic- ipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. On foot board of car hit by vehicle in street. Walsh v. Interurban St. R. R., 50 Misc. 637. City Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Hit in eye by splinter from glass bulb dropped by defendant’s employee. Whittacker v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & Suburban R. R., 110 App. Div. 767. Verdict, $325. Affirmed. In baggage car injured by sudden opening of door. Wood v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 770. Reversed, non-suit. Tripping by catching foot in defective mat in car. Spaeth v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 819. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Thrown down by sudden stopping of train as he walked towards door. Neadham v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 48 Misc. 522. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Standing in aisle of car thrown down by starting of train. Norminton v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 48 Misc. 526. Municipal judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall of stone from embankment injuring passenger on passing car. Goller v. F. J. & G. R. R., 110 App. Div. 620. Verdict, $350. Reversed. 178 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES-—-FACTS Passengers Injured While on Cars—Continued Passenger in dining car injured by food and drink spilled by waiter. Cassasa v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 170. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Kicked in face by person entering car window. Grogan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 107 App. Div. 254. Setting aside ver- dict, reversed. , Injured in rush from car following explosion on passing car. German v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 107 App. Div. 354. Verdict, $750. Affirmed. Sudden starting of car causing plaintiff to be thrown on the floor of car causing injury. Lennox v. Interurban St. R. R., 104 App. Div. 110. Verdict, $4,000. Re- versed. Injured by fall of satchel in rack in car. Whiting v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R., 97 App. Div. 11. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Unexplained loss of passenger’s travelling bag at night. Arthur v. Pullman Co., 44 Misc. 229. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff. Affirmed. Kicked by fellow passenger entering car window. Grogan v..Brooklyn Heights R. R., 97 App. Div. 418. Reversed. Error to dismiss complaint. Thrown down by sudden lurch of car while starting. Harty v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 95 App. Div. 119. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Thrown against car seat by sudden starting of car when entering same, Plum v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 91 App. Div. 420. Verdict, $10,333.33. Affirmed. Passenger forced against seat by over crowding and sudden start- ing of car. Viemeister v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 91 App. Div. 510. Judgment for defendant, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 179 Passengers Injured While on Cars—Continued Passenger on railroad platform pushed by dense crowd against car and injured. Ditmar v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 91 App. Div. 378. -Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Passenger on car injured by collision with vehicle while running at high speed in fog. Fisher v. Union R. R. of N. Y. City, 86 App. Div. 365. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Passenger on street car hit by pole attached to building. Sheppard v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 146 App. Div. 806. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Falling into coal chute on ferry boat. Weill v. City of New York, 147 App. Div. 634. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Injury by car catching fire through defective electrical equip- ment. Brook v. Union Elevated R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 668. Verdict, $1,250. Affirmed. Passengers Injured on Steam Railroad Injured in collision between trains of different roads. Gorman v. N. Y. Chicago & St. Lawrence R. R., 194 N. Y. 488. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Theft of money while asleep in sleeping car. Cohen v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R., 121 App. Div. 5. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Intended passenger killed while passing through open freight train to reach passenger car. Van Ostrand v. D. & H. Co., 112 App. Div. 783. Verdict, $3,500. Re- versed. Passenger losing money and property in railroad accident. Knieriem v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 146 App. Div. 661. Verdict, $1,838. Affirmed. Collision between trains of different companies killing passenger. Reid v. Long Island R. R., 144 App. Div. 267. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. 180 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Passengers, Collision of Cars and Vehicles, etc. Injured by collision between car and delivery wagon. Bamberg v. International R. R., 121 App. Div. 1. Verdict, $8,000. Re- versed. Injured by collision of car with truck on street railroad. Newman v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 127 App. Div. 12. Judgment of Municipal Court, affirmed. Passenger in elevator hit by falling plaster from shaft of elevator causing injury. Frahm v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 131 App. Div. 747. Verdict, $8,000. Reversed. Passenger on street railroad injured by collision with railroad train at crossing. Moore v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R., 133 App. Div. 396. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff reversed. Passenger caused to fall by tripping over gate chain on ferry boat. Grabler v. N. Y. & East R. R. & Ferry Co., 64 Misc. 58. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Loss of baggage left on steamship. Hart v. North German Lloyd S. 8. Co., 108 App. Div. 279. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, affirmed. Passenger on car injured by collision between car and horse and wagon. Grant v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 99 App. Div. 422. Judgment for defend- ant, affirmed. Dismissal of complaint. Passenger on car hit by shaft of truck by collision between car and vehicle. Smith v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 92 App. Div. 213. Verdict, $25,000. Modified and affirmed. Passenger riding with driver of truck injured by collision be- tween truck and car. Robinson v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 91 App. Div. 158. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Passenger on car injured by collision of car with express wagon. Kelley ». Metropolitan St. R. R., 89 App. Div. 59. Verdict, $800. Re- versed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 181 Passengers, Collision of Cars and Vehicles, etc.—Continued Passenger on street car injured by runaway horse plunging into car. Ellis v. N. Y. City R. R. Co. & Park & Tilford, 127 App. Div. 328. Judg-- ment for defendant affirmed in part and reversed in part. Passenger of stage injured by shutting door of vehicle. Sturgis v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 122 App. Div. 658. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Passenger on car injured by collision between car and express wagon breaking windows of car. Frank v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 91 App. Div. 485. Verdict, $3,000. Af- firmed. Passenger ori car injured by collision with vehicle while running at high speed in fog. Fisher v. Union R. R. of N. Y. City, 86 App. Div. 365. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Passenger injured by collision between car and motor truck. Platoff v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & 8. R. R., 144 App. Div. 273. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Pass Injury to brakeman riding on pass by collision. Vroom v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R., 129 App. Div. 858. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. : Pavement Fall of pavement throwing plaintiff and vehicle into ditch. Johnson v. City of Troy, 124 App. Div. 29. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. - Pedestrian Run down by truck in street while waiting for car. Muldoon »v. City Fireproofing Co., 134 App. Div. 453. Dismissal of com- plaint. Reversal. Injury by fall of building, collapsing while plaintiff passed. Glasgow v. Jordan, 124 App. Div. 488. Verdict, $750. Reversed. 182 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Pedestrian—Continued Injured by sign falling from fifth story. Feder v. Friedman, 71 Misc. 134. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Street giving way under feet of pedestrian causing fall. Monahan »v. Empire City Subway Co., 52 Misc. 566. Judgment Municipal Court for plaintiff, reversed. : Injured by runaway horse frightened by train obstructing street. Burns v. D. & H. Co., 116 App. Div. 111. Verdict, $6,500. Reversed. Slipping of foot into hole in cross walk adjoining rail of railroad track, foot caught in rail flange. Ross v. Metropolitan Street Co., 116 App. Div. 507. Verdict, $15,000. Re- versed. Run over by truck driven by defendant’s servant. Johnson v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 148 App. Div. 926. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Hit while crossing street by pole of defendant’s vehicle. Zapfe v. John Mullins & Sons, 112 App. Div. 34. (Mem.) Order denying defendant’s motion for new trial, reversed. Injured by fall of stone from window sill. Papazian v. Baumgartner, 49 Misc. 244. Municipal judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Hit by vehicle after its collision with a car of street railroad. Taquinto v. Bauer, 104 App. Div. 56. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Tripping over cord stretched across foot bridge in public street. Schiverea v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 89 App. Div. 340. Verdict, $15,000. Affirmed. : Pedestrian on public street hit by falling limb of tree. McGarey v. City of New York, 89 App. Div. 500. Order setting aside ver- dict, reversed. Pedestrian in street struck by falling pole for banner, inflicting injuries causing death. Durfield v. City of New York, 101 App. Div. 581. Verdict, $10,000. Re- versed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 183 Pedestrian—Continued Run over by truck while crossing street. Wagner v. Clausen & Son Brewing Co., 146 App. Div. 70. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Injury to pedestrian by fall of broken glass from window during storm. Boyd v. Shopiro Co., 147 App. Div. 185. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Pedestrian stumbling over rail of track projecting above surface of ground. Thompson v. United Traction Co., 147 App. Div. 392. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Fall of sign on side of building injuring passer by. Di Marco »v. Isaac, 74 Misc. 459. City: Court judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. Boy struck by street car while crossing street. Byrnes v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 794. Verdict, $100. Reversed. Tripping over wire protecting grass plot at railway station. Clyde v. Brooklyn Union Elevated R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 705. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Struck by car at street crossing. Hollon v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 784. Verdict, $300. Reversed. Pedestrian stumbling over bars of an awning in front of theater. Harman »v. City of N. Y., 148 App. Div. 61. Verdict, $1,250. Reversed. Fall of window glass injuring pedestrian on street. Pearson v. Ehrich, 148 App. Div. 680. Judgment for defendant. Reversed. Run over by brewery wagon while crossing street. Peterson v. Ballantine & Sons, 205 N. Y. 29. Reversing, 141 App. Div. 920, and affirming judgment for plaintiff. Pedestrian knocked down on sidewalk by automobile. Wooding v. Thorn, 148 App. Div. 21. Verdict, $10,000. Order denying motion to set aside verdict, affirmed. 184 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Pedestrian—Continued Pedestrian, struck by defendant’s wagon while crossing street. Kayser v. N. Y. Mail Co., 75 Mise. 474. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Physician Negligence of physician in declaring person insane. Warner v. Packer, 139 App. Div. 207. Verdict, $25,000. Reversed. Pile Driver Capsizing of unseaworthy vessel. Blumquist v. Snare & Triest Co., 185 App. Div. 709. Dismissing complaint, verdict set aside. Reversed. Breaking of defective rope causing hammer to fall injuring plain- tiff. Jenkins r. Phoenix Construction Co., 145 App. Div. 183. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Platform Falling caused by broken rope throwing stevedore in water. Agresta v. Stevenson, 112 App. Div. 367. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Thrown to ground by breaking of rail to veranda while leaning against it. Maslin v. Childs, 146 App. Div. 174. Motion for new trial granted. Breaking of platform throwing plaintiff, causing injury. Madden v. Hughes, 104 App. Div. 101. Verdict, $3,700. Affirmed. Fall from gangway by’ foot slipping on defective cleat. Baker v. Empire Wire Co., 102 App. Div. 125. Verdict, $3,250. Reversed. Fall from coal tressel by stepping into a hole in a defective plank. Wazenski rv. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 180 N. Y. 466. Order denying plain- tiff’s motion for new trial, reversed. Reversing, 86 App. Div. 629. Fall of rail of balcony in rear of tenement, precipitating decedent to the ground. Clarke v. Welsh, 93 App. Div. 393. Verdict, $4,000. Affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 185 Platform—Continucd Slipping on platform at railroad station at night causing injury. Barnes v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 42 Misc. 622. Motion for non-suit denied. Plans Defective plans causing collapse of walls. Potter v. Gilbert, 130 App. Div. 632. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Poisons Poisoned by sorting vanilla beans. McDonald v. Triest, 119 App. Div. 75. Judgment Municipal Court for plaintiff, reversed. Policeman Run down in street while on duty. Xenodochius v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 129 App. Div. 26. Judgment Municipal Court, affirmed. Fall of policeman down elevator shaft left unguarded by occu- pant of building. Racine v. Morris, 201 N. Y. 240. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Affirm- ing, 136 App. Div. 467. Officer of railroad shooting boy stealing ride after he had left com- pany’s premises. Sharp v. Erie R. R., 90 App. Div. 502. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Premises Leaving grounds in an unusual manner and falling into elevator well. Gilfillan v. German Hospital & Dispensary in N. Y., 115 App. Div. 48. Judgment for defendant on dismissal of complaint after trial, affirmed. Child falling into excavation on defendant’s property left un- guarded. Goldberg v. Graham,.146 App. Div. 501. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. 186 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Private Property Plaintiff shot by game keeper while poaching on premises of defendant. Magar v. Hammond, 95 App. Div. 249. Verdict, $13,000. Affirmed. Public Place Falling of board in theater causing injury. Flanagan v. Goldberg, 137 App. Div. 92. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Child falling into pipe left by city at entrance of church. Hunton v. Village of Peekskill, 119 App. Div. 500. Judgment of county court, reversed. Spectators injured by overcrowded gallery. Weiner v. Scherrer, 64 Misc. 82. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Push Cart Hit by hub of passing vehicle. Tolkon v. Otto E. Rainer Co., 125 App. Div. 695. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Railroad, Collision Between Trains, Cars and Vehicles Explosion of dynamite in car from collision between trains. Kelly v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 432. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Leg of employee broken by engine violently backing into car. DeSantes v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 119 App. Div. 95. Verdict, $700. Reversed. be Collision between train and vehicle killing intestate riding in vehicle on invitation of driver. Murphy v. Erie R. R. Co., 202 N. Y. 242. Judgment affirming judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Collision between trains owing to disobedience of orders as to passing. Hayes v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 121 App. Div. 198. Motion for new trial, denied. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 187 Railroad, Collision Between Trains, Cars and Vehicles—Continued Loaded cars with no brakes running down incline causing colli- sion. Lane v. New York Contracting Co., 125 App. Div. 808. Verdict, $16,000. Reversed. Collision of train with engine on which decedent was employed by misplaced switch. _VanInwegen v. Erie R. R. Co., 126 App. Div. 297. Verdict, $16,500. Affirmed. Head-on collision causing death of fireman by failure to obey orders. Butler v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg R. R., 142 App. Div. 282. Verdict, $7,500. Affirmed. Collision of car with truck. Vogel v. Baher, 130 App. Div. 732. Judgment dismissing complaint, re- versed. Collision caused by loosening brake allowing collision with other cars. ; Isola v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 134 App. Div. 313. Verdict, $6,000. Collision by running into disabled train. Hammond v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 140 App. Div. 810. Verdict, $16,000. Order setting aside verdict affirmed. Collision causing injury to car repairer. Anable v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 188 App. Div. 380. Appeal from non-suit. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Collision between trains at switch, defective signals. Dunn v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 1388 App. Div. 371. Verdict, $4,500. Reversed. Collision of train at high speed with van crossing track, no warning. Nelson v. Long Island R. R., 109 App. Div. 626. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Head-on collision between two trains due to mistake in orders. McCarthy v. Pennsylvania R. R., 189 N. Y. 170, reversing, 115 App. Div. 915. Reversed. 188 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Railroad, Collision Between Trains, Cars and Vehicles—Continued Collision between trains killing employee in cab. Field v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 86 App. Div. 148. Judgment for defend- ant, affirmed. Collision between trains from failure to observe signal, killing engineer. Shannon v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 88 App. Div. 349. Judgment for de- fendant, affirmed, non-suit by court. Breaking of air hose on car causing train to stop resulting in collision. Newton v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 96 App. Div. 81. Verdict, $2,775. Af- firmed. Switchman crushed between two cars while coupling cars, by collision with other cars. Ward v. Manhattan R. R., 95 App. Div. 437. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Collision between trains causing injuries. Jones v. N. Y. Central R. R., 99 App. Div. 1. Verdict, $15,000. Affirmed. Collision of switch engine with train standing on siding by order of yard master. Mintram v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R., 104 App. Div. 38. Verdict, $4,500. Af- firmed. Brakeman killed between parts of parted train while engaged in coupling. Keefe v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 109 App. Div. 180. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Brakeman crushed between cars while coupling cars from failure to promulgate rules. Freemont v. Boston & Maine R. R., 111 App. Div. 831. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Intended passenger caught between cars while passing through open freight train. Van Ostrand v. D. & H. Canal Co., 112 App. Div. 783. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Collision between trains of different companies killing passenger. Reid v. Long Island R. R., 144 App. Div. 267. Judgment for defendant. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 189 Railroad, Collision Between Trains, Cars, and Vehicles—Continued Collision between car and motor truck. Platoff v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & S. R. R., 144 App. Div. 273. Judgment for defendant, dismissal of complaint, reversed. Collision of train with automobile at crossing. Carnochan »v. Erie R. R., 73 Misc. 131. Judgment for defendant. Collision of automobile with train at crossing. Bonert v. L. I. R. R., 145 App. Div. 552. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Railroad Injured by Defects in Cars and Trains Switchman struck by switch rod while jumping on car. Kinney v. Rutland R. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 286. Dismissal of complaint. Non-suit granted. Injury to employee by defects in oil tank car in possession of railroad. Finan v. Valvoline Oil Co. & Erie R. R. Co., 51 Misc. 292. Demurrer of de- fendant, sustained. Falling of car window having imperfect fastening, causing injury. Boice v. Ulster & Delaware R. R., 120 App. Div. 643. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Hit by bent brace on car and thrown under car. Wilson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 129 App. Div. 125. Dismissal .of com- plaint, reversed. Injury to employee by crippled car being moved on track. Kozak v. Erie R. R., 1385 App. Div. 726. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Verdict for plaintiff reinstated. Failure to couple locomotives together in proper manner. Dalzell v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 186 App. Div. 329. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Defective brake causing injury while coupling cars. Stevenson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 1837 App. Div. 742. Verdict, $15,000. Reversed. Fall from locomotive, failure to provide grab iron. Chaffee v. Erie R. R., 140 App. Div. 38. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. 190 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Railroad Employees Injured by and on Trains Employee struck by locomotive while in defendant’s yard. Caffi v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 52 Misc. 570. Appeal by plaintiff from order of Municipal Court. Affirmed. Employee run over by locomotive while working in ash pit under locomotive. Mikos v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 118 App. Div. 536. Verdict, $7,233.33. Affirmed. Bursting of hose causing brakes to set and stoppage of train,. injuring plaintiff. Smith v. N. Y., Chicago & St. Lawrence R. R., 86 App. Div. 188. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Brakeman caught between ends of running boards of cars while coupling. Strauss v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 91 App. Div. 583. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Employee run over by locomotive while raking out ashes. Lane v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 93 App. Div. 40. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Hit by locomotive while cleaning switch with broom. Riola v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 97 App. Div. 252. Judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Denying motion for new trial. Ash hoer cleaning ashes from locomotive injured by locomotive being moved. Lanev. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 107 App. Div. 166. Judgment for defend- ant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Brakeman walking im rear of train run down by locomotive running backward. Loomis v. Lake Shore &.M. 8. R. R., 182 N. Y. 380. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Brakeman hit by boxes falling from car. Lyon v. Coleman, 123 App. Div. 703. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. Attendant accompanying shipment of freight, killed in transit. Hodge v. Rutland R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 142. Verdict, $2,000. Re- versed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 191 Railroad Employees Injured by and on Trains—Continued Employee coupling cars injured by negligence in starting of train while coupling. McHugh v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 179 N. Y. 378. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Judgment for defendant. Employee struck by train while standing voluntarily in place of danger. Connell v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 144 App. Div. 664. Verdict, $4,500. Reversed. Track inspector hit by train while working on track. Sereno v. D. L. & W. R. R., 145 App. Div. 136. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. , Fireman hit by passing train when having head out of cab. Brockhausen v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 146 App. Div. 413. Verdict, $6,000. Affirmed. Order for examination of party defendant, affirmed. Ash hoer under locomotive, injured by movement of locomotive by hostler. McCoy v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 185 N. Y. 276. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Reversing, 100 App. Div. 276. Track hand hit by switch engine while removing ice from track. Rich »v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 818. Verdict, $2,000. Re- versed. Hit by tie thrown by passing train. Bannon v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R.. 112 App. Div. 552. Verdict, $750. Re- versed. Fall under hand car and caboose when jumping from track to avoid backing train. Colaizzi v. Pennsylvania R. R., 143 App. Div. 638. Appeal by defendant from order setting aside verdict. Brakeman thrown from top of car by sudden starting of train. Clark v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 115 App. Div. 813. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. ; Hit by train while standing on track of temporary railroad, failure to look. Wheeler v. Sundstram & Stratton Co., 143 App. Div. 499. Verdict, $12,000. Reversed. 192 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Railroad Employees Injured by and on Trains—Continued Employees removing ashes from engine, run over by locomotive. McCoy v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 119 App. Div. 531. Verdict, $8,750. Affirmed. Escaping steam from blow-off cock of locomotive injuring plain- tiff. : Kelly v. American Locomotive Co., 121 App. Div. 81. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmed. Arm caught between cars, necessitating amputation. Onesti v. Central N. E. R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 554. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Blocking hit by train, pushing plaintiff from bridge. Stiles v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 142 App. Div. 917. Judgment for defend- ant, affirmed. Brakeman standing near train thrown by sudden movement of train. Payne v. N. Y.S. & W. R. R., 141 App. Div. 833. Order of Special Term denying motion to make more definite and certain, reversed. Brakeman killed by explosion of dynamite in train. Kelley v. D. L. & W. R. R., 192 N. Y. 208. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Track walker hit by train at night switching to track on which he was walking unbeknown to him. Disario v. N. Y. 0. & W. R. R., 142 App. Div. 159. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Brakeman caught between bumpers because of conductor’s negligence in giving signals. Brown v. N. Y. C. & H..R. R. R., 126 App. Div. 240. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed. Foreman struck by express train while walking on tracks. Brady v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 127 App. Div. 347. Verdict, $15,000. Reversed. Employee hit by train while installing electric devices. Shea v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 147 App. Div. 660. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 193 Railroad Employees Injured by and on Trains—Continued Employee overcome by smoke and gas while cleaning railroad tunnel. Pennica v. D, L. & W. R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 787. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Car repairer thrown from step of locomotive by negligence of hostler. Penunzio v. Central R. R. of N. J., 148 App. Div. 168. Verdict, $15,000. Reversed. Brakeman jumping from train and run over. Reynolds v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 345. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed. Track repairer hit by locomotive. Reinertsen v. Erie R. R., 142 App. Div. 31. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. Engineer struck by engine while walking on track. Buckley v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 142 App. Div. 8. Verdict, $20,000. Reversed. Foreman run over by tender running backward on track. Clancy v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 128 App. Div. 141. Verdict, $20,000. Reversed. Employee hit by express train while stepping on one track to avoid train on other. Laplace v. Lake Shore & M.S. R. R., 127 App. Div. 843. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Hit by passing train while walking near track. Dangelo v. Lake Shore & M.S. R. R., 127 App. Div. 835. Motion for new trial denied. Bridge repairer struck by train while at work. House v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 128 App. Div. 756. Verdict, $8,000. Re- versed. Track walker run over in yard, failure of rules. Bell v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 128 App. Div. 730. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. 194 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Railroad Employees Injured by and on Trains—Continued Brakeman on car killed by derailment of car. Henson v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 194 N. Y. 205. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Hit by locomotive backing on main track. Rashkoff v. Erie R. R., 141 App. Div. 624. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Brakeman injured striking overhead bridge. Harrison v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 195 N. Y. 86. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. 127 App. Div. 000, modified. Brakeman standing on top of car thrown to ground by sudden starting of train by engineer. Breed v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 181 App. Div. 492. Verdict, $5,000. Employee struck by train when getting out of box car near depot where he had been waiting for train after work was finished. Cavanagh v. Central New England R. R., 181 App. Div. 856. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Inspecting cars; inspector injured by car being backed upon him while between cars. Brainerd v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R., 132 App. Div. 498. Verdict, $8,000. Re- versed. Hit by iron bar in hands of fellow workman thrown by passing train. Inglese v. N. Y., N. H. & H.R. R. R., 183 App. Div. 198. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Hit by tender on railroad track. Clancy v. N. Y., N. H. & H.R. R. R., 183 App. Div. 119. Verdict, $18,000: Affirmed. Fall from platform of backing train by sudden stopping of train. Jones v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 134 App. Div. 39. Non-suit. Reversed. Brakeman crushed between bumpers. Lane v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R., 141 App. Div. 145. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Verdict, $5,000. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 195 Railroad Employees Injured by and on Trains—Continued Station agent killed by being struck by train backing on track. Hallock v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R., 197 N. Y. 450. Judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. Reversing, 132 App. Div. 943. Injury to brakeman by train starting while boarding train. VanHaaren v. L. I. R. R. Co., 186 App. Div. 15. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Defendant’s engine left track killing plaintiff's intestate in caboose. Faudington v. Erie R. R., 136 App. Div. 737. Verdict, $11,000. Reversed. Employee struck by train while crossing track to get tools. DeNapoli v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. R., 186 App. Div. 334. Verdict, $4,500. Reversed. Track repairer injured by train while at work. Baccelli v. D. & H. R. R. Co., 188 App. Div. 623. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of express package being removed, injuring assistant gate tender. Cannon v. Fargo, 147 App. Div. 51. Verdict, $1,875. Reversed. Hit by piece of coal falling from tender of locomotive of passing train. Utess v. Erie R. R., 204 N. Y. 324. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Re- versing, 138 App. Div. 914. Death of engineer by derailment of engine caused by defect in track. Prince v. Central N. E. R. R., 147 App. Div. 486. Verdict, $20,000. Re- versed. Railroad, Trespassers Injured on Run over by train while foot caught in cattle guard. Thayer v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 117 App. Div. 318. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Boy picking coal on track hit by train backing down upon him. Riordan v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 41 Misc. 399. Motion to set aside ver- dict, by defendants, granted. 196 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Railroad, Trespassers Injured on—Continued Boy stealing ride, shot after leaving railroad premises by com- pany’s officer. Sharp v. Erie R. R., 90 App. Div. 502. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Dismissal of complaint. Struck by train while walking on railroad track. Greene v. N. Y. 0. & W. R. R., 102 App. Div. 322. Interlocutory judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Trespassing boy stealing ride, shot by railroad employee. Sharp v. Erie R. R., 184 N. Y. 100. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Killed while attempting to board train by collision on bridge while walking on bridge. Soronen v. Von Postau, 112 App. ee 437. Municipal judgment for de- - fendant, reversed. Walking on bridge and overtaken by train. Feldman v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 142 App. Div. 339. Verdict for plain- tiff, affirmed. Boarding passing train and thrown off by motion of train. Newmark v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 127 App. Div. 58. Verdict, $5,500. Reversed. Trespasser on track caught foot in rails, defendant failing to stop train although signal given, and running over plaintiff. Neuberger v. Long Island R. R. Co., 131 App. Div. 885. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. - Trespasser struck by engine on track. Marra v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 139 App. Div. 707. Verdict, $3,000. Re- versed. Kicked by brakeman while attempting to steal ride and falling from train. Kruse v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 146 App. Div. 485. Judgment for de- fendant, affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 197 Railroad, Running Trains Rapidly Running trains rapidly, failure to see workman ahead. Marra v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R.-R., 139 App. Div. 707. Verdict, $3,000. Re- versed. Railroad station used as post office, patron stepping out of office killed by passing train running 35 miles per hour. Paulding v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 182 App. Div. 68. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Railroad, Hit at Crossing Hit by train while crossing with bicycle. -Zaun v. L. I. R. R., 139 App. Div. 719. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Struck by train while crossing at grade crossing. Dolan v. Long Island R. R., 144 App. Div. 684. Motion for new trial denied. Killed by train while crossing track in night time. Palmer v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 144 App. Div. 798. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Struck by train at crossing, killing decedent. Schuster v. Erie R. R., 145 App. Div. 71. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Railroad, Licensee Injured Licensee falling in hole between rails. Englehardt v. Central, N. E. R. R. Co., 189 App. Div. 787. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Pedestrian falling under moving train. + Kempv.N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 185 App. Div. 773. Verdict, $3,500. Railroad, Derailment of Cars and Trains Derailment of construction train by running over cow, failure to fence track. Mendizabal v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 89 App. Div. 387. Verdict, $17,000. Affirmed. Derailment of locomotive by ice covering track, killing engineer. Neagle v. Syracuse, Binghamton & N. Y. R. R., 109 App. Div. 339. Ver- dict, $5,000, Affirmed. Reversed, 185 N. Y. 270. 198 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Railroad, Derailment of Cars and Trains—Continued Derailment of train caused by a shifting of switch injuring con- ductor. France v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 118 App. Div. 550. Motion for new trial, granted. Derailment of train injuring engineer, failure to lock switch. Pearsall v. N. Y. Central R. R., 189 N. Y. 474. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Car not sufficiently blocked starting on down grade, striking building and killing intestate. Martin v. State of N. Y., 120 App. Div. 633. Dismissing claim, affirmed. Overturning of train caused by defective culvert, injuring plain- tiff. Strong v. Rutland R. R., 121 App. Div. 391. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Derailment of freight car causing death of brakeman. Henson v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 122 App. Div. 160. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Derailment of train by accumulated ice, etc. Causing injury. Gibbons v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 122 App. Div. 87. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Engine leaving track, killing engineer. Crissman v. Erie R. R. Co., 123 App. Div. 61. Verdict, $10,500. Affirmed. Defective switch causing derailment and injury of engineer. Pearsall v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 128 App. Div. 397. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmed. oe Derailment of train. Flansburg v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 136 App. Div. 551. Verdict, $5,500. Order setting aside verdict, affirmed. Railroad, Contractor’s Employees Injured Employee of contractor repairing tracks hit by train. Johnson v. Terry & Tench Co., 113 App. Div. 762. Judgment for defend- ant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 199 Railroad, Contractor’s Employees Injured—Continued Superintendent of repairing contractor hit by passing train while standing on track. Keeler ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 114 App. Div. 807. Verdict, $15,000. Reversed. Employee of independent contractor struck by train while cross- : ing track. Grathwohl v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 116 App. Div. 176. Verdict, $1,800. Reversed. Employee of contractor hit by locomotive on tressle. Conrad v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 187 App. Div. 372. Verdict, $1,200. Affirmed. Employee of contractor working on railroad hit by train from failure of flagman to warn. _ Gorman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 131 App. Div. 207. Verdict, $2,700. Affirmed. Railroad, Injuries from Machinery and Apparatus : Engineer hit by arm of derrick extending over tracks while pass- ing on locomotive. McAuley v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 111 App. Div. 117. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. Passenger in box car injured by slipping of strut in pushing box car from switch. Wilson v. D. L. & W. R. R., 119 App. Div. 675. Verdict, $5,000. “Reversed. Brakeman’s arm crushed by defective automatic coupling. Shaw v. D. L. & W. R. R., 126 App. Div. 210. Verdict, $5,750. Reversed. Skids placed between car and depot platform falling, causing plaintiff to fall and injured. Heiser v. Cincinnati Abbattoir Co., 141 App. Div. 400. Verdict, $8,320. Reversed. Failure to fasten clamp on rail to prevent falling of crane. Dowdell v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 198 N. Y. 362. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Affirming, 129 App. Div. 937. 200 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Railroad, Injured by Defective Platform and Structures Brakeman hit by low bridge, the telltales being defective. Quinlan v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. R., 89 App. Div. 266. Order denying motion for new trial, affirmed. Slipping on oil on railroad station platform at night, causing in- jury. : Barnes v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 42 Misc. 622. Motion for non-suit, de- nied. . Defective telltales, failure to give warning. Harrison v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 127 App. Div. 804. Verdict, $6,500. Reversed. Fall on icy platform, alighting from train. Ripp v. Fuchs, 129 App. Div. 321. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Injured by falling on icy platform while boarding train. Kemp v. N. Y. C. R. R., 185 App. Div. 773. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Railroad, Animals on Track ; Injury to horse passing through gate and on to track. Davison v. D. L. & W. R. R., 184 App. Div. 872. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Animals straying on to railroad from defective guards. Bateman v. Rutland R. R. Co., 126 App. Div. 511. Appeal by plaintiff from order. Affirmed. Railroad, Children Crossing Tracks Child struck by train while crossing track near intersection of streets. Strickland v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 88 App. Div. 367. Verdict, $8,500. Reversed. Child struck by locomotive while crossing tracks on path or travelled way. LeDuc v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 92 App. Div. 107. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Child struck at crossing by cars backing up. Batchelor v. Degnon Realty & Terminal Imp. Co., 141 App. Div. 879. Verdict, $4,250. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 201 Railroad, Children Crossing Tracks—Continued Child crossing track in street run over by sudden backing of train of dirt cars. Batchelor v. Signor Realty & Terminal Co., 131 App. Div. 136. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Child in mother’s arms struck by car while crossing track. Epstein v. Brooklyn & Queens Co. & S. R. R., 147 App. Div. 58. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Railroad, Passengers Injured by Employees Injury from being pushed from moving train by conductor when attempting to board. Dwyer v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R: R., 1386 App. Div. 87. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Theft of passenger’s money while asleep in sleeping car. Cohen v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 121 App. Div. 5. Municipal Court judg- ment for plaintiff, reversed. Passenger in baggage car injured by sudden opening of door. Wood v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 109 App. Div. 770. Non-suit, reversed. Railroad, Passenger Injured on Alighting from Train Thrown from car while alighting therefrom by starting of train. Dunne v. N. Y., N. H. & H.R. R., 99 App. Div. 571. Order denying motion to set aside verdict. Passenger falling on alighting from train by conductor withdraw- ing support when assisting. Hanlon v. Central R. R. of New Jersey, 187 N. Y. 73. Judgment appellate division for plaintiff, affirmed. Alighting from moving train in night time, receiving injuries. Bartle v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 121 App. Div. 72. Motion for new trial by defendant denied. Train stopping before station reached, injury to passenger alight- ing in dark and falling. Bartle v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 193 N. Y. 362. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Reversing, 121 App. Div. 72. 202 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Railroad, Passenger Injured on Alighting from Train—Continued Passenger falling into hole in or near railroad track on alighting from train and waiting to take child. Catterson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 132 App. Div. 399. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Railroad Passengers Falling from Train Falling from sleeping car berth, accident unexplained. Losie v. D. & H. R. R., 142 App. Div. 214. Dismissal of complaint, af- firmed. Passenger standing on step thrown off by sudden movement of train. Winchell v. N. Y..C. & H. R. R. R., 121 App. Div. 52. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Fall from train of cars while attempting to board. Carmody v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 146 App. Div. 400. Verdict, $40,000. Reversed. Railroad, Fires Fire escaping from locomotive burning buildings of plaintiff. Jacobs v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 107 App. Div. 134. Verdict, $3,700. Affirmed. Fire caused from sparks from locomotive stack. Babbitt v. Erie R. R. Co., 108 App. Div. 74. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Fire hose cut off by train, increasing loss to building. Phenix Insurance Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 122 App. Div. 113. Ver- dict, $15,109.38. Affirmed. Spark from locomotive causing fire on right of way. McDonough »v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 124 App. Div. 38. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. ; Fire caused by sparks, spark arrester out of repair. Chandler v. Rutland R. R. Co., 140 App. Div. 68. Verdict, $4,000. Re- versed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 203 Railroad, Fires—Continued Fire caught from passing of defendant’s train. Nichols v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 61 Misc. 195. Judgment of Justice Court for plaintiff, affirmed. Railroad, Miscellaneous Falling over box by side of train and falling under train. Pitken ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 94 App. Div. 31. Verdict, $1,500. Re- versed. Fall of satchel from rack in car injuring passenger. Whiting v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 97 App. Div. 11. Verdict, $1,500. Re- versed: Car crowded, crowd surging against plaintiff’s hand and forcing it through glass in door. Madden v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 98 App. Div. 406. Verdict, $1,255. Re- versed. Damages from overflow of water caused by diversion of stream by railroad embankment. Dennison v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 98 App. Div. 399. Non-suit. Re- versed. Horses frightened by noise of train throwing plaintiff from vehicle. Wiebur v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 109 App. Div. 81. Verdict, $1,200. Re- versed. Hit by bundle of papers thrown from rapidly moving train. Clifford v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 111 App. Div. 809. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Horse frightened by train obstructing street and injuring pedes- trian. Burnes v. D. & H. R. R., 116 App. Div. 111. Verdict, $6,500. Reversed. Person on edge of platform struck by object projecting from passing train. Eaton v. N. Y. C. & H. R. RB. R., 125 App. Div. 54. Verdict, $1,500. Af- firmed. 204 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Railroad, Miscellaneous—Continued Slippery iron rail in cross walk causing foot to be caught in hole. Stern v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 193 N. Y. 328. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing 116 App. Div. 507. Falling through open space in track. Dixon v. N. Y. 0. & W. BR. R., 198 N. Y. 58. Appellate division judgment. for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 132 App. Div. 944. Lowering of crossing gate by stranger, injuring wagon. Tuohy v. L. I. R. R., 89 App. Div. 198. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Employee falling into excavation dug by defendant against de- railing switch. Wood v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 184 N. Y. 290. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Injury from falling window. Waldman v. Brooklyn Union Elevated R. R. Co., 136 App. Div.376. Munic- ipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Cutting hand on glass door on platform while attempting to pre- vent its swinging. ; Fahner v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 86 App. Div. 488. Verdict, $400. Re- versed. Hit by shunted car on switch while’ attempting to pass end of train. Walsh ». N. Y. C. & H. R: R. R., 204 N. Y. 58. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Affirming, 140 App. Div. 1. Fire box of locomotive exploded from quantity of water coming suddenly in contact therewith. Marcean v. Rutland R. R. Co., 74 Misc. 635. Verdict for plaintiff. Motion to set aside verdict denied. Killed by backing train while purchasing fruit at car on side track. Shipman v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 147 App. Div. 383. Judgment for de-: fendant on dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of stone from railroad embankment injuring passenger on passing car. Goller v. Fonda Johnstown & Gloversville R. R., 110 App. Div. 620. Ver- dict, $350. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 205 Railroads, Miscellaneous—Continued Team running away frightened by steam from locomotive on city street, causing injury. Sheldon v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 396. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Railroad, Injured Crossing Track Struck by train while crossing tracks on public street. Corbally v. Erie R. R. Co., 97 App. Div. 21. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Hit by train and killed while crossing track at a private crossing. Keller v. Erie R. R., 98 App. Div. 550. Verdict, $9,500. Reversed. Pedestrian hit by train at crossing while crossing track. Westervelt v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 86 App. Div. 316. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Dismissal of complaint. Struck by train while crossing track on street, excessive speed and failure to warn. McAuliffe v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 88 App. Div. 356. Verdict, $900. Reversed. Struck by train while crossing track in vehicle. Smith v. Lehigh Valley R. R., i177 N. Y. 379. Judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. Struck by train while crossing track with horse and carriage in night time. Smith v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 117 N. Y. 224. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Hit by train while crossing track. Dolfini v. Erie R. R. Co., 178 N. Y. 1. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 82 App. Div. 643. Carriage hit by train while crossing track, no warning of approach of train being given. Heater v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 90 App. Div. 495. Verdict, $1,500. Re- versed. 206 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Railroad, Injured Crossing Track—Continued Struck by train at railroad crossing. McSweeney v. Erie R. R., 93 App. Div. 496. Dismissal of complaint, af- firmed. Struck by train while crossing tracks of defendant in city street. McCarthy v. City of Syracuse, 96 App. Div. 566. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Hit by train while crossing track, failure to look or listen. Coleman v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 98 App. Div. 349. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Rider of bicycle hit by engine while crossing track. Waddell». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 98 App. Div. 348. Verdict, $4,000. Re- versed. Woman hit by train while crossing track. Hatch v. N. Y. Central & H.R. R. R. Co., 42 Misc. 152. Motion to set aside verdict, $5,000. Granted. ‘ Struck by train while crossing tracks at alleged crossing. Clarke v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 104 App. Div. 167. Verdict, $10,500. Reversed. Hit by locomotive while crossing track causing death. Larsen v. U. 8. Mortgage & Trust Co., 104 App. Div. 76. Verdict, $9,600. Order setting aside verdict modified and affirmed. Struck by train while driving across track. Hood v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 109 App. Div. 418. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall from wagon driven across railroad track while engine ap- proaching. ° Milliman v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 109 App. Div. 139. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Hit by locomotive while driving across tracks. May York v. N. Y. & O. & W. R. R., 108 App. Div. 126. Order setting aside verdict and granting new trial, affirmed. Hit by train while crossing tracks at station to take train. Tingley v. Long Island R. R., 109 App. Div. 793. Judgment for defendant, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 207 Railroad, Injured Crossing Track—Continued Struck by tender of engine while crossing track. Fisher v. Central Vermont R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 449. Verdict, $7,000. Reversed. Child in arms struck by train while being carried across tracks. Paige v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 111 App. Div. 828. Verdict, $1,200. Re- versed. Child struck by train at crossing, gates not lowered and no flag- man. Recktenwald v. Erie R. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 490. Verdict, $3,000. Re- versed. Intestate killed while crossing track. (Brief syllabi.) Odell v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 113 App. Div. 20. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Run over while crossing track at night by locomotive backing without lights. Best v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 117 App. Div. 739. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Hit by locomotive while crossing track, failure to look. Fisher v. Central Vermont R. R., 118 App. Div. 446. Verdict, $7,500. Re- versed. Struck by locomotive while crossing track. Spila v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 147 App. Div. 666. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Struck by train opposite station. Griffith v. L. I. R. R. Co., 147 App. Div. 693. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Killed by being struck by train while crossing track. Orendorf v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 119 App. Div. 638. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Hit by locomotive while crossing track of defendant. Simkoff v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 190 N. Y. 256. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Affirming, 118 App. Div. 918. 208 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Railroad, Injured Crossing Track—Continued Hit by train while crossing track as licensee. , Smetanka v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 123 App. Div. 323. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Killed while crossing tracks in railroad yard going to work. Boyle v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 58 Misc. 50. Motion to set aside verdict, granted. Automobile hit by train while crossing track. Spencer v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 123 App. Div. 789. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Hit by locomotive while driving over crossing. Cunningham v. Del., Lackawanna & W. R. R., 142 App. Div. 303. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Struck by engine of passing train while crossing tracks. Pulcino v. Long Island R. R., 125 App. Div. 629. Verdict, $10,000. Af- firmed. Struck by engine running backward on track. Clancy v. N. Y. Central & H.R. R. R., 201 N. Y. 235. Judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Affirming, 135 App. Div. 322. Conductor of electric railroad killed at crossing of steam railroad. Cox v. D. & H. R. R., 128 App. Div. 363. Verdict, $14,560. Reversed. Struck by train while attempting to pass around other train blocking crossing. Kurt v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R., 127 App. Div. 838. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Struck by locomotive’while driving over crossing. Robinson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 128 App. Div. 677. Non-suit, reversed. Hit by engine at crossing. O’Brien v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R., 129 App. Div. 288. Verdict, $3,000. Re- versed. Hit by dump cars while crossing track. Matrusciello v. Milliken Bros., 141 App. Div. 769. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 209 Railroad, Injured Crossing Track—Continued Struck by train while crossing track. Lamphear v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 194. N. Y.172. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Struck by train at highway crossing. Brown »v. Long Island R. R., 129 App. Div. 649. Verdict, $4,000. Re- versed. Motor truck disabled on railroad crossing, struck by defendant’s train at night. Green v. Long Island R. R., 131 App. Div. 277. Verdict, $2,800. Reversed. Collision at crossing resulting in death of occupant of coal wagon by collision with engine. Foley v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 1382 App. Div. 506. Verdict, $1,100. Af- firmed. Collision of train with vehicle at grade crossing of railroad. Parsons v. Syracuse, Binghamton & N.Y. R. R., 183 App. Div. 461. Ver- dict, $8,500. Reversed. Horse killed at crossing by fall on pavement and struck by train. Balch v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 134 App. Div. 1. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Struck by passing train in daylight while crossing track in cutter. Phelps v. Erie R. R. Co., 184 App. Div. 729. Non-suit, reversed. Injury by collision at farm crossing of railroad. Potter v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 184 App. Div. 827. Judgment dismissing complaint. ‘ Child injured by train, entangled with adjoining fence. Wood »v. Long Island R. R., 137 App. Div. 63. Verdict, $3,000. Attempting to cross track in front of train. Wahler v. L. I. R. R., 187 App. Div. 17. Dismissing complaint. Exceptions overruled. Struck by switch engine while crossing track by private way. Relyea v. Central N. E. R. R., 187 App. Div. 12. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Struck by train while crossing track. May v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 187 App. Div. 7. Verdict, $10,000. Re- versed. 210 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Railroad, Injured Crossing Track—Continued Killed by train while crossing track. Cunningham ». Erie R. R., 137 App. Div. 506. Verdict, $850. Reversed. Struck by locomotive while crossing track. _ Drago v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 189 App. Div. 828. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmed. 7 Decedent struck by locomotive while crossing tracks in night time. Parsons v. Syracuse, Binghamton & N. Y. R. R. Co., 205 N. Y. 226. Re- versing judgment for plaintiff, 145 App. Div. 900. Hit by kicked car while crossing track. Walsh v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 140 App. Div. 1. Verdict, $1,000. Affirmed. Collision between train and trolley car. Mahoney »v. L. I. R. R., 147 App. Div. 646. Judgment for defendant, re- versed. Real Property Damage to owner by erection of railroad viaduct. Rose v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. & N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 108 App. Div. 206. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Rear End Collision Rear end railroad collision causing injury to fireman while on locomotive in yard. Biehl v. Erie R. R., 182 App. Div. 364. Verdict, $15,000. Reversed. Roofing . Fall of roofing in building construction. Ferrick v. Eidlitze, 195 N. Y. 248. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Re- versing 123 App. Div. 587. Rope Breaking of rope causing injury. Pluckham v. American Bridge Co., 104 App. Div. 404. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 211 Run Over Run over in public street by driver. Ardoline v. Reinhardt, 130 App. Div. 119. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Saws Injury by placing hands suddenly on unguarded saw. Ostermann v. Ware, 135 App. Div. 119. Verdict, $1,400. Reversed. Buzz saw caused to wobble by defective boards, causing injury. Reich v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 120 App. Div. 445. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Injured by saw by cutting long boards on defective table, throw- ing hand on saw. Finkelstein v. Kramer, 133 App. Div. 565. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Arm cut off by circular saw started while oiling machinery. Brodsky v. Kronenberg, 145 App. Div. 594. Verdict, $8,000. Reversed. Tripping over concealed nails in sawmill floor and thrusting hand on unguarded saw. Finkle v. Bolton Landing Lumber Co., 148 App. Div. 500. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Safe Place to Work Fall of stone rolling down stone pile where plaintiff was em- ployed. Bria v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 183 App. Div. 346. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Failure to furnish air to caisson and remove smoke. Waller v. Degnon Contracting Co., 120 App. Div. 389. Appeal from order by defendant, denying plaintiff’s motion, reversed. ; Schools Fall of ceiling in school room injuring pupil. Wahrman v. Board of Education, 187 N. Y. 331. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. 212 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Scaffold Fall from failure to guard. Naniko v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 140 App. Div. 378. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Defective scaffold causing fall. Herman »v. Fitzgibbons Boiler Co., 136 App. Div. 286. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Breaking of boards of scaffold. Jones v. Gamble, 140 App. Div. 733. Verdict, $488. Affirmed. Injury by scaffold of painter falling on plaintiff. Mehler v. Fisch, 65 Misc. 549. City Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Injury from falling scaffold by reason of defective blocking. Hammond v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 1836 App. Div. 100. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Breaking of rope holding scaffold while plaintiff was painting building. , Gruner v. The Texas Co., 1383 App. Div. 418. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed. Fall of painter’s hanging scaffold causing intestate to fall to the street. Gombert v: McKay, 201 N. Y. 27. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Affirming, 134 App. Div. 470. Intestate working on swinging scaffold falling to the floor by scaffold not being properly braced or secured. Tiedjen v. National Elevator Co., 141 App. Div. 529. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Plank slipping and falf from scaffold. Anderson v. Milliken Brothers, 123 App. Div. 614. Verdict, $5,000. Af- firmed. Breaking of plank of scaffold precipitating plaintiff to floor below. Barry v. Derby Desk Co., 121 App. Div. 810. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall of plank from scaffold catching plaintiff’s hand and causing injury. . Siversen v. Jenks, 102 App. Div. 313. Verdict, $6,000. Affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 213 Scaffold—Continued Stepping on defective scaffold, tipping of plank throwing plain- tiff. Quigley v. Thatcher, 144 App. Div. 710. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Fall of heavy stone on scaffold causing the cross piece to break and fall, throwing plaintiff to the walk. Lorenzo v. Faillace, 132 App. Div. 103. Verdict, $550. Reversed. Tipping of plank on floor frame of building while passing over it with material, causing fall. Nixon v. Thompson-Starrett Co., 181 App. Div. 152. Verdict, $3,500. Affirmed. Failure to supply material to build proper scaffold, causing fall from scaffold in its erection. Quigg v. Post & McCord, 131 App. Div. 155. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. Collapse of scaffold causing injury. Chiavaroli v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 131 App. Div. 372. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall by breaking of board used as scaffold. Convey v. Finn, 130 App. Div. 440. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Fall from scaffold in shaft. Tiedjen v. National Elevator Co., 180 App. Div. 504. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Breaking of support causing fall. Connolly v. Peterson, 62 Misc. 624. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff reversed. Fall of scaffold for unexplained reason throwing plaintiff. Schmidt v. Rohn, 127 App. Div. 220. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall from scaffold by tipping of plank. Bower v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corporation, 125 App. Div. 684. Ver- dict, $11,750. Affirmed. Falling through opening in floor of scaffold. Burns v. Crow, 123 App. Div. 251. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Fall of brick from scaffold injuring plaintiff working below. Choyce v. Hopper & Son (Incorporated), 120 App. Div. 177. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. 214 A DIGEST:OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Scaffold—Continued Fall of brick from scaffold knocked off by co-employee, causing injury. Willis v. Thompson-Starrett Co., 54 Misc. 238. Judgment Municipal Court for plaintiff reversed. Breaking of plank used as scaffold causing injury. Williams v. Ist National Bank of Utica, 118 App. Div. 555. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall of scaffold on which decedent was working, throwing him to the ground. Kelly v. Wills, 116 App. Div. 758. Verdict, $17,500. Affirmed. Fall from scaffold caused by loosened plank, a pin being hit by passing truck. Sheridan v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 115 App. Div. 282. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Elevator used as a scaffold being moved by employee, falls down shaft. Croce v. Buckley, 115 App. Div. 354. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Falling from incompleted stair way used as scaffold, sustaining ‘Injury. Ryan v. Irons, 114 App. Div. 165. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Fall of painter’s scaffold causing injury. Andrews v. Reiners, 112 App. Div. 378. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall caused by break of scaffold being constructed of defective material. « Madden v. Hughes, 185 N. Y. 466. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Affirm- ing, 104 App. Div. 101. Fall from scaffold by sagging of plank throwing plaintiff to the ground. Cunningham ». Peirce, 112 App. Div. 65. Verdict, $408.80. Reversed. Fall from scaffold caused by tilting or tipping of plank. Stokes v. N. Y Life Insurance Co., 112 App. Div. 77. Verdict, $325. Re- versed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 215 Scaffold—Continued Fall of scaffold causing plaintiff to fall who was working upon it. Sutherland v. Ammann, 112 App. Div. 332. Dismissal of complaint, af- firmed. Fall of scaffold causing injury to plaintiff. Davis v. Martin, 111 App. Div. 411. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Fall of scaffold by reason of removal of pier weakening the same. Berthelson v. Gabler, 111 App. Div. 142. Order setting aside verdict, re- versed. Falling of plank from scaffold above plaintiff while working in pit. lesiefe v. N: Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 102 App. Div. 168. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Fall from scaffold by reason of its plank being improperly sup- ported. : Swenson v. Wilson & Baillie Mfg. Co., 102 App. Div. 477. Motion for new trial. Fall from scaffold when hit by truck while plaintiff was at work .on same. Sheridan v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 101 App. Div. 534. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed in part and affirmed in part. Fall of scaffold by splitting of boards throwing plaintiff to the floor. Schapp v. Bloomer, 181 N. Y. 125. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Thrown from scaffold by its sagging and wobbling. Welk v. Jackson Agricultural Iron Works, 98 App. Div. 247. Verdict, $9,000. Affirmed. Fall from scaffold by its settling, causing plaintiff to lose balance. Hemstock v. Lackawanna Iron & Steel Co., 98 App. Div. 332. Verdict, $1,700. Reversed. ; Fall from scaffold by breaking of plank when stepped on. Tierney v. Vunck, 97 App. Div. 1. Verdict, $750. Affirmed. Scaffold breaking on which plaintiff was standing. Halloway v. McWilliams, 97 App. Div. 360. Judgment for defendant, reversed. 216 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Scaffold—Continued Falling from scaffold from tipping of plank. Conley v. Lackawanna Iron & Steel Co., 94 App. Div. 149. Motion for new trial. Collapse of scaffold for installing machinery injuring plaintiff standing thereon. Wingert v. Krakauer, 92 App. Div. 223. Verdict, $14,000. Reversed. Fall of defective scaffold furnished by employer, plank breaking throwing plantiff to the floor. Caddy v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 195 N. Y. 415. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Scaffold, fall from, causing injury. Huston v. Dobson, 138 App. Div. 810. Judgment for defendant directed by court, reversed. : Breaking of defective scaffold injuring employee. Smith v. Variety Iron & Steel Works Co., 147 App. Div. 242. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Fall from scaffold while carrying end of timber. ’ Murphy v. American Ice Co., 148 App. Div. 867. Verdict, $3,750. Re- versed. Sewer Overflow of sewer injuring plaintiff’s property. McKenzie v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 60. Judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. Damages to property by inadequate sewer. Karfiol v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 70. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. *° Break in sewer pipe causing injury. Epsteine v. Interborough R. T. Co., 52 Misc. 184. Judgment City Court for defendant, affirmed. Overflow caused by obstruction of marble dust in sewer. Watson v. City of N. Y., 51 Misc. 653. Municipal Court judgment dismis- sing complaint, reversed. Falling into sewer on leased premises through broken cover. Leaux v. City of N. Y., 87 App. Div. 398. Verdict $2,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 217 Sewer—Continued Break in old sewer causing damage to plaintiff’s premises. Gravey v. City of N. Y., 117 App. Div. 773. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Sewer closed by agents of city causing surface water to injure ad- joining premises. Brennan v. City of Albany, 143 App. Div. 752. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissing, complaint. Damage from overflow of sewer. O’Donnell v. City of Syracuse, 102 App. Div. 80. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Side Walk Falling on cross walk. Comstock v. Village of Schuylerville, 139 App. Div. 378. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. , Falling in hole in side walk. English v. Kwint, 140 App. Div. 509. Verdict, $1,200. Reversed. Fall on slippery surface of side walk. Austin v. City of Dunkirk, 140 App. Div. 44. Verdict, $800. Reversed. Falling in defective place in walk. Frost v. Port Chester, 139 App. Div. 197. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall caused by plank flying up. Carlson v. City of Dunkirk, 1388 App. Div. 368. Non-suit, reversed. Damage to side walk caused by contractor employed by munic- ipality. Flux v. Bellew Merritt Co., 138 App. Div. 579. Verdict, $250. Affirmed. Injury from fall on icy side walk when crossing street. Penor v. Glens Falls, 138 App. Div. 671. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall caused by board flying up and tripping plaintiff. Schreiber v. Village of Depew, 137 App. Div. 433. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Pipe projecting above surface of side walk. Preiss v. City of New York, 69 Misc. 492. Motion to set aside verdict for plaintiff, denied. 218 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Side Walk—Continued Fall on icy sidewalk causing injury. Hatch v. City of Elmira, 142 App. Div. 174. Verdict, $1,200. Reversed. Falling on board side walk and receiving injury. Cross v. City of Syracuse, 129 App. Div. 935. (Mem.) Judgment affirmed. Falling on icy side walk sustaining injury. Vanderbilt v. Geneva, 132 App. Div. 943. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Fall on icy side walk in front of public school where walk has unusual grade and slope. Owen v. City of N. Y., 141 App. Div. 217. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Plaintiff tripping on thin flag stone in side walk and falling. Davidson ». City of N. Y., 183 App. Div. 353. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Slipping and falling on accumulated snow and ice on side walk. Wade». City of Mt. Vernon, 1383 App. Div. 389. Verdict, $2,000. Affirmed. Stone left lying on side walk for two weeks by municipal employees causing plaintiff to trip over it and fall. Moriarty v. City of N. Y., 182 App. Div. 10. Verdict, $556. Affirmed. Falling into opening or improperly covered coal hole in side walk. Scott v. Curtis, 195 N. Y. 424. Affirmance of judgment for plaintiff, revers- ing, 126 App. Div. 916. Pedestrian striking foot against boards on walk left by adjoining owner and sustaining injuries. Friedman v. City of N. Y., 63 Misc. 310. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Pedestrian stepping,into insecurely protected coal hole and re- ceiving injuries. McGinnis v. Hyman, 63 Misc. 316. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. : Falling into hole in side walk. Dempsey v. City of N. Y., 141 App. Div. 567. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Injury by defective side walk. Kelley v. City of N. Y., 129 App. Div. 658. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 219 Side Walk—Continued Stepping into hole in side waik. Carson v. Village of Dresden, 129 App. Div. 728. Verdict, $2,500. Re- versed. Fall on side walk caused by accumulated ice and snow. Winckler v. City of N. Y., 129 App. Div. 45. Verdict, $7,150. Reversed. Fall by stepping in hole left by plank removal. Ferguson v. Village of Waverly, 128 App. Div. 697. Verdict, $250. Re- versed. Plank tipping causing fall. Romanowski v. City of Tonawanda, 127 App. Div. 814. Verdict, $1,480. Reversed. Fall by stepping into hole in cement side walk. Murphy v. City of N. Y., 142 App. Div. 62. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall into gully or trench across side walk. Purdy v. City of New York, 126 App. Div. 320. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Falling on icy side walk and receiving injuries. Cupp »v. City of Elmira, 126 App. Div. 589. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Falling into hole in side walk in front of defendant’s premises. Furst v. Zucker, 125 App. Div. 591. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Fall on icy side walk causing injury. Wade v. City of Mt. Vernon, 123 App. Div. 796. Verdict, $2,000. Re- versed. Fall on icy side walk caused by waters flowing over it. Powers v. Village of Moravia, 123 App. Div. 191. Verdict, $2,000. Affirmed. Fall of plaintiff on side walk. Bernreither v. City of N. Y., 123 App. Div. 291. Verdict, $1,250. Re- versed. Stepping into hole in walk and breaking leg. Powers v. City of N. Y., 121 App. Div. 483. Verdict, $600. Reversed. 220 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Side Walk—Continued Depression in walk between new and old curb causing injury. Mackey »v. City of N. Y., 121 App. Div. 473. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Stepping into hole of long standing in defective side walk. Hungerford v. Village of Waverly, 56 Misc. 186. Demurrer. Fall of pedestrian into cellar way near side walk. Collins v. Decker, 120 App. Div. 645. Verdict, $1,000. Affirmed. Fall on icy side walk. Schneider v. City of N. Y., 143 App. Div. 216. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Falling over obstruction, steps projecting upon side walk. Graham v. City of New Rochelle, 120 App. Div. 414. Verdict, $1,200. Affirmed. Fall caused by stepping into hole in side walk. Romaine »v. Village of Spring Valley, 120 App. Div. 501. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Fall through stepping in hole in side walk. Henry v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 432. Verdict, $7,250. Reversed. Fall on defective side walk by catching foot in hole. Mayhood ». City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 100. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. 3 Fall on side walk from flag stone projecting above adjoining surface. Brennan v. City of N. Y., 117 App. Div. 848. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Fall on sloping way leading from way to cross walk. Stratton v. City of N. Y$ 117 App. Div. 887. Dismissal of complaint, re- versed. Falling over loose flagging lying on surface of sidewalk being repaired. Brown »v. City of N. Y., 117 App. Div.1. (Mem.) Fall of beam in pile of lumber near side walk causing injury to bo in street. Snitten v. Brown, 52 Misc. 569. Judgment dismissing complaint, Municipal Court. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 221 Side Walk—Continued Pedestrian stepping into open gutter between side walk and cross walk. O’Connor v. City of Dunkirk, 143 App. Div. 696. Verdict, $4,000. Re- versed. , Stumbling over projecting edge of side walk and falling. Butler v. Village of Oxford, 186 N. Y. 444. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Falling through coal hole in city side walk causing injury. Manney v. Curtis, 1138 App. Div. 421. Verdict, $3,200. Affirmed. Injury caused by defect in city street side walk. Carson v. City of N. Y., 113 App. Div. 679. Judgment for defendant, re- versed. Dismissal of complaint. Sudden collapse of roof over side walk injuring plaintiff. Scheller v. Silbermintz, 50 Misc. 175. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Fall of temporary bridge erected over excavation in side walk. Parks v. City of N. Y., 111 App. Div. 836. Verdict, $25,000. Affirmed. Pedestrian falling by stumbling over planks covering excavation in side walk. Derby v. Degnon McLean Contracting Co., 112 App. Div. 324. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Fall on side walk by slipping and catching foot on projecting flagging. Rodrigues v. Village of Ossining, 111 App. Div. 297. Verdict, $200. Re- versed. Fall on ice allowed to accumulate in front of school. Pymm ». City of N. Y., 111 App. Div. 330. Judgment for defendant, re- versed. Dismissal of complaint. Fall caused by catching tip of shoe under flag stone in walk. Marroney v. City of N. Y., 49 Misc. 307. Motion by defendant for new trial, denied. Fall on ice on walks slightly covered with snow. Kopper v. City of Yonkers, 110 App. Div. 747. Verdict. $1,200. Affirmed. 222 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Side Walk—Continued Fall of shed over walk, erected in building operations. Lubelsky v. Silverman, 49 Misc. 133. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Fall on walk at night, a section of walk having been removed. Benjamin v. Village of Tupper Lake, 110 App. Div. 426. Verdict, $50. Reversed. Slipping on icy walk caused by leaking hydrant. Walsh v. City of N. Y., 109 App. Div. 541. Verdict, $12,500. Reversed. Fall of pedestrian by stubbing toe against edge of projecting plank in walk. Carr v. Degnon Contracting Co., 48 Misc. 531. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall by tripping over flag stone projecting from walk. Dickerman v. Weeks, 108 App. Div. 257. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Fall on side walk covered with ice. Kleyle v. City of Oswego, 109 App. Div. 330. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Fall into coal hole in side walk in front of defendant’s premises. Berger v. Content, 47 Misc. 390. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, affirmed. Fall from stumbling and catching foot against flagging projecting from walk. Mullins v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 183 N. Y. 129. Judgment for plaintiff, ‘af- firmed. Affirming 95 App. Div. 234. Fall through coal hole in side walk, cover being left off. Hart v. McKenna, 106 App. Div. 219. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Fall caused by tripping over extension of passage way over street. McDonald v. Halbrook, Cabot & Daly Co., 105 App. Div. 90. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Pedestrian catching foot in hole while walking over temporary passage way under side walk. Keating v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 105 App. Div. 362. Order setting aside verdict for defendant, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 223 Side Walk—Continued Falling from skid placed by defendant across walk to convey merchandise. Shane v. National Biscuit Co., 102 App. Div. 188. Verdict, $2,000. Af- firmed. Fall over obstruction in night time left on side walk by sub- contractor. Phoenix Bridge Co. ». Creem, 102 App. Div. 354. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Fall on side walk by removal of plank leaving open space across walk. Ladrick v. Village of Green Island, 103.App. Div. 71. Verdict, $300. Af- firmed. Falling into hole in side walk which had existed for several years. Bartley v. City of N. Y., 102 App. Div. 23. Appeal from Supreme Court order setting aside verdict. Fall of bridge over excavation in side walk by over crowding. Coolidge v. City of N. Y., 99 App. Div. 175. Verdict, $22,000. Reversed. Struck and run over by truck backed by hand, down incline from side walk. Wilkins v. Nassau Newspapers Delivery Express Co., 98 App. Div. 180. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Fall on icy side walk causing injuries. Moran v. City of N. Y., 98 App. Div. 301. Dismissal of complaint. Af- firmed. Fall from slipping on ice and snow on side walk sustaining in- juries. Rogers v. City of Rome, 96 App. Div. 427. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Pedestrian injured by breaking of rotten board in side walk. McCarthy v. City of Syracuse, 96 App. Div. 566. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Fall of sign over side walk injuring pedestrian. Leary v. City of Yonkers, 95 App. Div. 126. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. 224. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Side Walk—Continued Fall over defective place in walk caused by its use by independent contractor. Mullins v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 95 App. Div. 234. Verdict, $1,100. Affirmed. Fall of side walk platform and bridge injuring plaintiff and pedestrian. . Legzett v. City of Watertown, 93 App. Div. 80. Verdict, $800. Reversed. Fall on side walk covered with ice and snow. O’Shaughnessey v. Village of Middleport, 93 App. Div. 93. Verdict, $250. Reversed. Falling on defective side walk sustaining injury. Walden v. City of Jamestown, 178 N. Y. 218. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Fall on ice on side walk, momentarily forgetful of its presence. Delaney v. City of Mt. Vernon, 89 App. Div. 209. Verdict, $800. Affirmed. Fall on icy side walk sustaining injuries. Klaus v. City of Buffalo, 86 App. Div. 221. Judgment for defendant re- versed. Falling on ridge of ice on side walk. McManus »v. City of Watertown, 88 App. Div. 361. Verdict, $300. Re- versed. Fall on slippery side walk across which water flowed. Erb v. City of N. Y., 122 App. Div. 915. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Injury by stepping 6n loose plank. Carsen v. Village of Dresden, 137 App. Div. 927. Judgment, reversed. Fall on side walk from defective flag-stone. Henry v. City of New York, 110 App. Div. 22. (Brief syllabi.) Judgment for plaintiff, reversed.. Fall from tripping over root in path beside street in outlying district. Quinn v. City of N. Y., 145 App. Div. 195. Verdict, $400. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 225 Side Walk—Continued Fall on icy side walk. Larson v. City of N. Y., 145 App. Div. 619. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Injured by fall of window frames placed on sidewalk. Sukert v. Halperin, 146 App. Div. 338. Verdict, $300. Reversed. Falling into excavation by side walk when flag stone walk falls into excavation. Dougherty v. City of N. Y., 146 App. Div. 727. Judgment for defendant. Dismissal of complaint. Fall on side walk caused by splintered flag stone, causing de- pression in walk. Henry v. City of N. Y., 110 App. Div. 22. (Brief syllabi.) Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall on defective side walk. Karr v. Village of Alfred, 148 App. Div. 435. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Signs Fall of sign from 5th story injuring pedestrian. Feder v. Friedman, 71 Misc. 134. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall of sign on side of building, injuring passer by. Di Marco »v. Isaac, 74 Misc. 459. City Court judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. Signals Collision between. trains caused by defective signals. Dunn v. N. Y. Central R. R., 188 App. Div. 371. Verdict, $4,500. Re- versed. Railroad conductor killed while attempting to couple cars by switchman failing to give signals. Eagen v. Buffalo Union Terminal Co., 200 N. Y. 478. Judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Reversing 134 App. Div. 995. 226 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Signals—Continued Hit by girder lowered by derrick; defective system of signals to engineer. Stewart v. Hinkle Iron Co., 141 App. Div. 224. Order vacating dismissal of complaint, reversed. d Motorman disregarding signals colliding with train. People v. Jackson, 125 App. Div. 873. Judgment for indictment, reversed. Negligence in signals causing injury in elevator. Galino v. Fleischmann Realty Co., 130 App. Div. 605. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Slipping Slipping on pebble causing cover to turn over and injury. Smith v. Long Island R. R., 129 App. Div. 427. Verdict, $1,700. Reversed. Slipping near machine and catching arm in machine. Martin v. Walker & Williams Mfg. Co., 128 App. Div. 733. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Slipping in depression in defective runway causing fall while wheeling load. Kenezevich v. Bush Terminal Co., 127 App. Div. 55. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Foot slipping on oil spot on floor and drawn into unguarded pulley belt. Johnson v. Onondaga Paper Co., 112 App. Div. 647. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. e Spectators Fall and injury caused by collapse of seat on which spectator was sitting. Lusk v. Peck, 132 App. Div. 426. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Spectators injured by overcrowded gallery. Weiner v. Scherrer, 64 Misc. 82.. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 227 Spectators—Continued Fall of gas shade in concert hall injuring spectator. Goldstein v. Levy, 74 Misc. 463, Municipal Court order setting aside ver- dict of $200. Reversed. Stage Passenger injured by shutting door. Sturgis v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 122 App. Div 658. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Stairway Failure to light stairway; causing fall. Baumler v. Wilm, 136 App. Div. 857. Verdict, $206. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall on defective stairway in store. Weller v. Consolidated Gas Co., 198 N. Y. 98. Judgment for plaintiff, re- versed. Reversing, 128 App. Div. 824. Fall on slippery stairway in theater. Mitcheltree v. Starr & Wilbur, 135 App. Div. 210. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Stepped in hole in stairway in front of dwelling. Stern v. Miller, 60 Misc. 103. Judgment Municipal Court. Falling down stairway by tripping over spike in stairs. Roth v. Feld Co., 59 Mise. 214. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Fall down unlighted stairway, cause of fall unknown. Jones v. Ryan, 125 App. Div. 282. Verdict, $4,875. Reversed. Plaintiff thrown to ground by breaking of stairs and steps. Bayley vy. Curtis Bros. Lumber Co., 124 App. Div. 496. Judgment Munic- -ipal Court, reversed. Fall of shade in public hall, injuring spectator. Goldstein v. Levy, 74 Misc. 463. Verdict, $200, set aside. 228 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Stairway—Continued Plaintiff ascending poorly lighted stairs hit by boy descending stairway. Davy v. Lyons, 71 Misc. 139. Verdict, $350. Order setting aside City Court verdict of $350, modified and affirmed. Fall down unlighted stairway in hall. : Lather v. Bammann, 122 App. Div. 13. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Falling into cellar way near side walk, by pedestrian. Collins v. Decker, 120 App. Div. 645. Verdict, $1,000. Affirmed. Fall down stairway leading from dimly lighted hall. Robinson v. Crimmins, 120 App. Div. 250. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Fall on stairway by slipping on piece of tobacco. ‘Kaplowitz v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 52 Mise. 648. (Mem.) Judgment Municipal Court for plaintiff, reversed. Fall through open unguarded stairway in dark place while ex- amining building. Boyd v. U. 8. Mortgage & Trust Co., 187 N. Y. 262. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Fall down short flight of steps in dark hall way. Dailey v. Distler, 115 App. Div. 102. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. 5 Falling from incompleted stairway used as scaffold, causing in- jury. Ryan v. Irons, 114 App. Div. 165. Verdict, $1,000.. Reversed. Fall on stairs caused by insufficient light. Greenfield v. Doepfner, 49 Misc. 651. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Fall on tread of stairway of dry goods store. Reeves v. 14th St. Store, 110 App. Div. 735. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall on stairs in unlighted hallway in the night by tripping on worn carpet. Lee v. Ingraham, 106 App. Div. 167. Verdict, $2,000. Affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 229 Stairway—Continued Falling down stairway with no banisters or rails. Kuhnen v. White, 102 App. Div. 36. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Dismissal of complaint. Customer falling on stairs of department store by stepping on concealed object under dust cloth. Graham v. Bauland Co., 97 App. Div. 141. Verdict, $9,000. Affirmed. Breaking of rail causing fall of person sitting upon it. Devine v. National Wall Paper Co., 95 App. Div. 194. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. ‘Dismissal of complaint. Slippery and defective steps causing fall. Pitman v. City of New York, 141 App. Div. 670. -Motion for new trial by plaintiff, granted. Fall of plaintiff’s wife in stairway on failure to provide lights. Schindler v. Welz & Zerweck, 145 App. Div. 5382. Municipal Court judg- ment for defendant. Falling down stairway by slipping on stairs. No lights in stair- way. Horn v. Breakstone, 75 Misc. 343. Non-suit. Motion for new trial, denied. Steam Steam valve blowing out causing injury. Utter v. Interriational Paper Co., 134 App. Div. 806. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Steam escaping from blow off cock of locomotive injuring plain- tiff. Kelly v. American Locomotive Co., 121 App. Div. 81. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmed. Breaking of steam pipe caused by excavation. Neale Incorporated v. N. Y. Steam Co., 147 App. Div. 725. Verdict, $4,349, affirmed. Store Fall of merchandise on customer in store. Higgins v. Ruppert, 124 App. Div. 530. Judgment Municipal Court for de- fendant, on non-suit at close of plaintiff’s case, reversed. 230 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Injury from tripping over obstruction in street. Powers v. Mechanicville, 140 App. Div. 835. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Pile of muck left in street causing wagon to be overturned when frightened horse runs upon it. Sweet v. Perkins, 196 N. Y. 482. Affirmed. Affirming, 123 App. Div. 910. Accumulated ice and snow in side walk causing fall and injuries. Wade v. City of Mt. Vernon, 123 App. Div. 796. Verdict, $2,000. Muni- cipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall on bridge by heel catching on plank on the most used part of bridge causing injury to knee. Hynes v. State of New York, 63 Misc. 592. Claim dismissed, judgment for State. Fall of beer kegs piled in street injuring plaintiff. Fluker v. Ziegele Brewing Co., 201 N. Y.40. Judgment for plaintiff re- versed. Reversing, 136 App. Div. 945. Damages caused by flow of surface water from improved street. Jung v. City of N. Y., 132 App. Div. 18. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall on street by reason of obstruction of ice and snow. Brennan v. City of N. Y., 180 App. Div. 267. Dismissing complaint, af- firmed. Policeman run down while on duty. Xenodochius v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 129 App. Div. 26. Judgment Municipal Court, affirmed. ¢ Boy run down in street by truck. Doyle v. Foster, 128 App. Div. 279. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Fall from stone in street causing injury. Orser v. City of N. Y., 127 App. Div. 335. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Falling into excavation in street when holding on to car. Howard v. 42nd St. M. & St. Nicholas Ave. R. R., 125 App. Div. 776. Ver- dict, $2,500. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 231 Street—Continued Pedestrian stepping into hole in pavement. Lalor v. City of New York, 147 App. Div. 649. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Pedestrian at night falling into excavation in city street. McDonald v. Degnon & McLean Contracting Co., 124 App. Div. 824. Ver- dict, $4,500. Reversed. Hole in road way causing plaintiff to be thrown from truck. Presky v. Degnon & McLean Contracting Co., 125 App. Div. 381. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Fall of pavement throwing plaintiff and vehicle into ditch. Johnson v. City of Troy, 124 App. Div. 29. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Falling from skid used to unload goods by curb. Kurlanchick v. Sklamberg, 56 Misc. 473. Judgment Municipal Court, re- versed. Stumbling over sewer man hole and injured. Jennings v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 121 App. Div. 587. Appeal by plain- tiff from judgment Municipal Court, reversed. Falling into unguarded man hole while street undergoing repairs. Steinbrenner v. Forney Co., 143 App. Div. 73. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Slipping and falling on incline from curb to pavement. Stratton v. City of N. Y., 190 N. Y. 294. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Pedestrian walking against rope connecting 2 vehicles drawn through street. Young v. Hermann, 119 App. Div. 445. Verdict, $3,500. Affirmed. Stepping into depression in pavement between rails of car line and being run over by trolley car. Schuster v. 42nd. St. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R., 118 App. Div. 197. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Street giving way under feet of pedestrian causing fall. Monahan v. Empire City Subway, 52 Misc. 566. Judgment Municipal Court for plaintiff, reversed. 232 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street—Continued Fall of beam in pile of lumber by side walk causing injury to boy in street. Snitten v. Brown, 52 Misc. 569. Dismissing complaint, reversed. Injury to horse by stepping on loose stone in village highway. McKone v. Village of Warsaw, 187 N. Y. 336. Judgment Appellate Division, reversed. Fall into open unguarded cellar way opening from highway. Opper v. Hellinger, 116 App. Div. 261. Verdict, $8,300. Reversed. -Passenger of car injured by stepping into depression in pavement when alighting from car. Grissinger v. International R. R. Co., 143 App. Div. 631. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. ‘Pedestrian falling into pond along highway from failure to guard banks of pond. Brenann v. Trustees of Village of Bath, 143 App. Div. 740. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissing complaint. Street sweeper pushing cart diagonally across street run over by truck approaching rapidly. Charters v. Palmer, 113 App. Div. 108. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Walking into and falling into open man hole in street. Wrigley v. City of N. Y., 122 App. Div. 402. Verdict, $1,800. Reversed. Awning support in street hit by hub of wheel causing it to fall. Mansfield v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 199. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. e Injury from driving into mound of earth in street. Buckley v. City of N. Y., 135 App. Div. 512. Verdict, $650. Reversed. Horse frightened by steam roller running away and causing injury. A. Buckhanan’s Sons v. Cranford Co., 112 App. Div. 278. Municipal judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Stepping into hole in city street on alighting from car at night. Miller v. City of New York, 104 App. Div. 33. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 233 Street—Continued Fall of driver from vehicle because of uneven pavement. Kaucher v. City of N. Y., 144 App. Div. 103. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Vehicle overturned by defect in public street. Cohen v. City of N. Y., 144 App. Div. 678. Judgment for defendant, dis- missal of complaint. Fall from tripping over root in path beside street in outlying district. Quinn »v. City of N. Y.,.145 App. Div. 195. Verdict, $400. Reversed. Hit by box falling from truck turning corner of street. Meade v. Goldman, 145 App. Div. 509. Judgment for defendant. Reversed. Pedestrian thrown under wagon while passing obstruction in highway. ‘ Boehm v. Hammond & Sloane, 145 App. Div. 511. Interlocutory judgment, affirmed. Falling into man hole in park, cover being removed. Thomas v. City of N. Y., 146 App. Div. 512. Dismissal of complaint. Judgment for defendant. Fall on street crossing where ice and snow had accumulated. Dupont ». Village of Port Chester, 204 N. Y. 351. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 138 App. Div. 924. Pedestrian stumbling over bars of an awning in front of theater. Harman v. City of N. Y., 148 App. Div. 61. Verdict, $1,250. Reversed. Street Railroad, Collision Between Cars and Vehicles Passenger injured by collision of car with truck. Newman v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 12. Judgment of Municipal Court for plaintiff, afirmed. Passenger about to transfer injured by sudden starting of car. Gillespie v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 87 App. Div. 38. Judgment for defendant, reversed. 234 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Collision Between Cars and Vehicles—Continued Horse hit by car while crossing narrow bridge. Adsit v. Catskill Electric R. R. Co., 88 App. Div. 167. Verdict, $150. Affirmed. Vehicle hit by car turning out to avoid another car. Pritchard v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 89 App. Div. 269. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissing complaint. Passenger injured on car in collision with express wagon. Kelly v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 89 App. Div, 159. Verdict, $800. Re- versed. Passenger thrown down by collision between cars on same track. Wilson v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 112 App. Div. 26. Judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Collision between street car and cab at intersection of streets. Cushing v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 92 App. Div. 510. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Hand forced through pane of glass by surging crowd in car. Madden v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 98 App. Div. 406. Verdict, $1,525. Reversed. Vehicle struck by car coming from the rear. Barringer v. United Traction Co., 101 App. Div. 330. Judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Collision between cars injuring passenger. Crolly v. Union R. R, Co., 46 Mise. 417. City Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. . Truck struck from behind by street car while on track. Kueski v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 109 App. Div. 207. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Collision between car on which plaintiff was passenger, with truck. Freeland v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 109 App. Div. 651. Verdict, $450. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 235 Street Railroad, Collision Between Cars and Vehicles—Continued Van hit by car when attempting to cross track. Kily v. N. Y. City R. R., 49 Misc. 254. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Hit by car when attempting to drive across track. Williams v. N. Y. City R. R., 49 Mise. 253. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Bicyclist struck by car while crossing track. Brooks v. International R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 555. Non-suit, reversed. Vehicle partially on track to avoid street excavation, hit by car in rear. Palmer v. Larchmont Horse R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 341. Verdict, $7,750. Reversed. Vehicle hit by electric car while on street car track. Bang v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 113 App. Div. 673. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Vehicle struck by car when crossing track. Fisher v. N. Y. City R. R., 50 Misc. 622. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Collision between car and vehicle driven by plaintiff attempting to cross track. Norton v. Interurban St. R. R., 50 Mise. 621. City Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Horse hit by car of defendant causing injuries. Nocera v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 113 App. Div. 419. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Collision of vehicle with electric car. Muller v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Misc. 640. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Collision between truck and electric car while crossing track. Littlefield v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Misc. 637. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. 236 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Collision Between Cars and Vehicles—Continued Collision of street car with van. Moore v. Westchester Electric Co., 115 App. Div. 62. County Court judg- ment for defendant, reversed. Collision between vehicle and street car when vehicle crossing track. ; Salcinger v. Interurban St. R. R., 52 Misc. 179. Order setting aside verdict. Collision between street car and vehicle in which plaintiff was riding. Scheib v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 578. Verdict, $10,000. Af- firmed. Collision between surface car and vehicle. Clancy v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 569. Municipal Court judg- ment for plaintiff, affirmed. Collision between car and moving van. Damsky v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 52 Misc. 175. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Collision of street car with wagon while latter was crossing track. Litzour v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 477. Verdict, $250. Re- versed. Collision of car with loaded truck injuring driver. Gormley v. 42nd St. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R., 116 App. Div. 155. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Collision between car and wagon on track. a Klassen v. Interurban St. R. R., 116 App. Div. 153. Verdict, $1,200. Re- versed. Collision with vehicle in which plaintiff was riding with driver and plaintiff injured. Kerin v. United Traction Co., 117 App. Div. 314. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Collision between car and vehicle while crossing track. Moore v. N. Y. City R. R., 52 Misc. 663. Judgment Municipal Court, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 237 Street Railroad, Collision Between Cars and Vehicles—Continued Collision between train and automobile at crossing causing injury. Loomis v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 1833 App. Div. 247. Dismissing com- plaint, reversed. Passenger on rear platform crushed by rear car over-riding for- ward car. Johnson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 252. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Passenger on car in collision with railroad train at crossing, injured. Moore v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 396. Munic- ipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Collision between plaintiff driving covered milk wagon and train, while crossing track, no signals. Enders v. Brooklyn Union Elevated R. R., 1381 App. Div. 170. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Collision of one car with another on same track, injuring pas- senger. Brundage v. Fonda, Johnson &-Gloversville R. R. Co.. 127 App. Div. 475. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Collision of automobile with train at grade crossing. Ward v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 119 App. Div. 487. Verdict, $10,000. Vehicle on track hit by car running into rear. Reynolds v. Larchmont Horse R. R., 83 App. Div. 189. Judgment for de- fendant, affirmed. Dismissing complaint. Collision between vehicle and trolley car. Lynch v. United Traction Co., 145 App. Div. 732. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Collision between electric car and automobile. Engel v. United Traction Co., 203 N. Y. 321. Affirming judgment for plain- tiff. Collision of car with horse while driven across track by sudden starting of car. Hill v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 145 App. Div. 605. Verdict, $150. Munic- ipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. 238 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Collision, Between Cars and Vehicles—Continued ° End of car striking truck near track. Leonard »v. Joline, 61 Misc. 336. Municipal Court judgment. Reversed. Collision of vehicle with street car while crossing track of rail- road. Ciarcia v. Westchester Electric R. R., 116 App. Div. 899. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Collision of car with vehicle while crossing track of railroad. Heitz v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 117 App. Div. 746. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Collision between trolley car and vehicle on track. Robinson v. Crosstown St. R. R., 118 App. Div. 543. Verdict, $200. Order denying motion for new trial reversed. Collision of car with vehicle in which plaintiff was riding. Doctoroff v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 55 Misc. 216. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Collision between car and vehicle while crossing tracks. Martin v. 42nd St., Manhattan & St. N. Ave. R. R., 54 Misc. 645. Judg- ment for plaintiff, Municipal Court, reversed. Passenger injured by collision between car and delivery wagon. Bamberg v. International R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 1. Verdict, $8,000. Reversed. Collision of car with vehicle crossing tracks. McGurgan v. N. Y. City R. R., 121 App. Div. 519. Municipal Court judg- ment for defendant, reversed. Collision between fwo cars on railroad injuring motorman. Durkee v. Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 122 App. Div. 278. Verdict, $4,500. Affirmed. Hit by car while driving over tracks in night time. Geoghegan v. Union R. R. Co. of N. Y. City, 122 App. Div. 646. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Loaded wagon near track hit by car. Lust v. Syracuse Rapid Transit Co., 142 App. Div. 290. Verdict, $35. Re- versed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 239 Street Railroad, Collision Between Cars and Vehicles—Continued Collision of car on which passenger riding, causing injury. Draper v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 124 App. Div. 351. Verdict, $12,500. Reversed. Motorman disregarding signals colliding with train. People v. Jackson, 125 App. Div. 873. Judgment on indictment, reversed. Collision between car and truck throwing the plaintiff from seat causing injury. Caminez v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & Suburban R. R., 127 App. Div. 138. Appeal by defendant from order of Municipal Court, reversed. Struck by trolley car while driving on track. Bang v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 128 App. Div. 134. Judgment of Munic- ipal Court, reversed. Collision between cars causing injury to passenger. Feola v. Orange Co. Road Construction Co., 129 App. Div. 485. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Carriage struck by car while driving on track. Netterfield v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 56. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Injury to passenger by collision between cars while on car. Giltman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 654. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Collision of street car with oil tank wagon by failure to furnish motorman with curtain to shield the light. Forton v. Crosstown St. R. R., 63 Misc. 237. Motion for new trial on minutes. New trial ordered. Collision between plaintiff's wagon and car while passing along tracks of defendant. Hiwode Florist Co. v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 131 App. Div. 118. Judg- ment affirmed. Collision between car and truck on public street. Tucker v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 131 App. Div. 97. Verdict for defend- ant directed by court. Reversed. 240 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Collision Between Cars and Vehicles—Continued Plaintiff struck by defendant’s car while driving on railroad track, looking back and seeing no car, again looking back saw car approaching and tried to turn off. Jaffa v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 181 App. Div. 852. Municipal Court judgment. for plaintiff, reversed. Hit by trolley car while driving on railroad track in street. Normand v. Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 474. Judgment on dismissal of complaint, reversed. Collision between vehicle and street car, motorman not reducing speed and driver looking only one way. Wood »v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R., 133 App. Div. 270. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Collision between cars of two different roads. Stanbridge v. Nassau Electric R. R., 1385 App. Div. 38. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, affirmed in part, reveneds in part. Collision between car and express wagon at intersection of street. Moore v. Rochester R. R., 184 App. Div. 858. Verdict, $994.43. Affirmed. Passenger on car injured by collision with train at railroad cross- ing. Rex v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R., 146 App. Div. 905. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Horse and wagon struck by trolley car on city street. Hickey, Kaplan & Wiltzek v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 693. Verdict, $300; affiymed. Street Railroad, Children Hit by Car Child struck and killed by car while crossing track. Atchason v. United Traction Co., 90 App. Div. 571. Verdict, $1,200. Re- versed. ; Child run down by car having no fender, motorman not looking. Fritsch v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 93 App. Div. 554. Verdict, $2,500 Affirmed. ‘A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 241 Street Railroad, Children Hit by Car—Continued Child run over by car while passing over track. McDonald v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 93 App. Div. 238. Verdict, $3,800. Reversed. Child hit by street car without signal or warning or lessening of speed. Dempsey v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 98 App. Div. 182. Non-suit, reversed. Child five years old run over by car while running in front of car. Wahnich v. Dry Dock East Broadway & Battery R. R., 112 App. Div. 4. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Child struck by car while crossing track. Lipsis v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 112 App. Div. 27. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Child struck by car while playing in street. Joost v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 113 App. Div. 499. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed. Child struck by car while crossing street. Hirtenstein v. Interurban St. R. R., 115 App. Div. 275. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Child hit by horse of car and by car, while playing in street. Kastenbaum v, N. Y. City R. R. Co., 120 App. Div. 160. Appeal by de- fendant from order Supreme Court. Hit by street car while playing in street. Sobol v. Union R. R. Co., 122 App. Div. 817. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Child hit by car while crossing street. Gallagher v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 124 App. Div. 868. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. : Child run over while crossing street. Corsale v. Facini et al., 60 Misc. 100. Judgment Municipal Court for de- fendant, reversed. Child run over by street car while crossing street. Grealish v.. Brooklyn Queens Co. & Suburban R. R..Co., 1380 App. Div. 238. Order setting aside verdict, reversed. 242 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Children Hit by Car—Continued Striking and running over child at street crossing. Quinlan v. Richmond Light & R. R. Co., 133 App. Div. 402. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. Child struck by trolley car causing injury. McFarland v. Elmira Water, Light & R. R. Co., 186 App. Div. 194. Appeal from non-suit. Child killed at street railroad crossing, struck by trolley car. Orafina v. N. Y. City Railroad Co., 148 App. Div. 417. Verdict, $900. Reversed. Child struck by trolley car while crossing track. Tjaden v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 145 App. Div. 581. Verdict, $250. Reversed. Child struck by fender of car in crossing street. Nitchman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 146 App. Div. 558. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Judgment for defendant. Boy struck by street car while crossing street. Byrnes v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 794. Verdict, $100; Reversed. Street Railroad, Derailment of Car Thrown against bridge by derailment of car while standing on platform. Beers v. West Side R. R. Co., 101 App. Div. 308. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Derailment of car and plunging into river caused by defective safe guards. Baruth v. Poughkeepsie City & W. F. El. R. R., 89 App. Div. 324. Judgment for defendant, reversed. , . Derailment of car injuring employee laying brick on side walk by car line. Kelly v. United Traction Co., 88 App. Div. 234. Verdict, $4,500. Re- versed. Derailment of car causing injury to plaintiff’s head. Murphy v. Interurban St. R. R., 105 App. Div. 110. Judgment for de-- fendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 243 Street Railroad, Derailment of Car—Continued Derailment of car by horse shoe getting into slot of track and stopping car. Miller v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Misc. 650. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Derailment of car caused by switch and failure of motorman to stop ¢ar. Regan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 115 App. Div. 705. Verdict, $15,000. Reversed. Derailment of car going into ditch injuring passenger. Braun v. Union R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 566. Judgment Municipal Court for defendant, reversed. Derailment of train by breaking of casting. Retter v. Olean St. R. R., 140 App. Div. 667. Verdict, $1,875. Reversed. Street Railroad, Injury to Employees Employee running car out of shed, falling over obstruction and injured by car. Mullen v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 89 App. Div. 21. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Car coupler run over by cars while coupling. McHugh v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 88 App. Div. 554. Judgment for defend- ant, affirmed. Dismissal of complaint. Fall of trolley pole, guide wheel having fallen out, conductor injured. Lynch v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 89 App. Div. 217. Verdict, $4,200. Affirmed. Hit by car while working in pot hole between rails of track. Ryan v. 3rd Ave. R. R., 92 App. Div. 306. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Employee repairing car injured by sudden starting of car. Quinn v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 91 App. Div. 489. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed. Conductor injured by car running off from track at end of line. White v. Lewiston & Youngstown F. R. Co., 94 App. Div. 4. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. 244 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Injury to Employees—Continued Conductor of car injured by obstruction of planking extending from excavation on line of road. Nichols v. City of New Rochelle, 105 App. Div. 77. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Conductor thrown from car by sudden jerk of car. McGinness v. 3rd Ave. R. R., 104 App. Div. 342. Verdict, $1,250. Re- versed. Foreman crushed between car and partition in car barn. Laffan v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 108 App. Div. 288. Order setting aside verdict, affirmed. Motorman injured by collision of car with steam roller. Hanson v. John W. Whalen ef al., 110 App. Div. 793. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmed. Fall of conductor into pit by sudden movement of car. Dulfer v. Brooklyn H. R. R., 115 App. Div. 670. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Sudden stopping of car by plow catching in rail. McCann v. Interborough Street R. R., 117 App. Div. 188. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Employee killed by train while installing switches. Froehlich v. Interborough R. T. Co., 120 App. Div. 474. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed. Motorman starting car without signal, injuring conductor. Simons v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 142 App. Div. 36. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. e Conductor killed while attemping to couple cars by switchman failing to give signal to stop. Eagen v. Buffalo Union Terminal Co., 200 N. Y. 478. Judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Reversing, 134 App. Div. 995. Track repairer of steam road hit by car of electric road while repairing track at crossing. Malizia v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 127 App. Div. 202. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 245 Street Railroad, Injury to Employees—Continued Employees walking near track and stumbling over fuse box, hit by train. Darton v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 125 App. Div. 836. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Employee burned by steam and water shot from passing loco- motive. Valvo v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 55 Mise. 253. Judgment Municipal Court, affirmed. Employee of elevated road struck and killed by passing train. McLaughlin v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 111 App. Div. 254. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. Switchman run over while sweeping out switches in track. Keating v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 110 App. Div. 108. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. Hit by train while working on track, due to foreman’s failure to give warning. Curran v. Manhattan R. R., 118 App. Div. 347. Verdict, $1,000. Re- versed. Struck by car shifted in car barn and thrown to the floor and injured. Edgar v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 146 App. Div. 541. Verdict, $6,500. Reversed. Street Railroad, Passenger Alighting, Hit by Car on Adjoining Track Passenger alighting and passing behind car, struck by car on adjoining track. Beers v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 88 App. Div. 9. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Passenger on alighting and passing behind car, struck by car on opposite track. Reed v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 87 App. Div. 427. Verdict, $650. Af- firmed. 246 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Passenger Alighting, Hit by Car on Adjoining Track—Con- tinued Passenger passing behind rear of car struck by car on opposite track. Reed v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 180 N. Y. 315. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Struck by electric car on opposite track after passing from behind car and crossing to other track. Furlong v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 103 App. Div. 215. Verdict, $500. Re- versed. Hit by car when crossing adjoining track after alighting from car. Beers v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 104 App. Div. 96. Verdict, $1,000. Af- firmed. Passenger alighting from car passing behind car, struck by train on opposite track. Axelrod v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 87. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Passenger alighting from one car hit by another while crossing adjoining track. McGreevy v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 113 App. Div. 155. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Hit by trolley car going in opposite direction after alighting from car. Wilson v. Rochester & Eastern Rapid T. R. Co., 123 App. Div. 90. Verdict, $200. Reversed. Passenger alighting from car, struck by car on adjoining track. Maynard v. Rochester#R. R. Co., 136 App. Div. 212. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Street Railroad, Passengers Injured on Cars Fall of car window injuring hand of passenger. Strembel v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 110 App. Div. 23. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Hand of passenger crushed by collision of car. Gott v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 110 App. Div. 18. Verdict, $800. Re- versed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 247 Street Railroad, Passenger Alighting, Hit by Car on Adjoining Track—Con- tinued Passenger falling by catching foot in defective car mat. Spaeth v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 819. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Fall of passenger by sudden starting of car, no hold strap avail- able. Butler v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 658. Municipal Court order, reversed. Stepping into space between car step and platform. Woolsey v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 123 App. Div. 631. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Conductor caught between cars and injured by breaking of chain. Donaldson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 129 App. 433. Judgment dismissing complaint, affirmed. Conductor injured by collision between cars. Murtagh »v. Joline, 70 Misc. 251. Judgment of City Court for plaintiff, reversed, Passenger riding on foot board hit by girder. Edwards v. N. J. & H. R. R. R. & Ferry Co., 144 App. Div. 544. Motion for new trial. . Injured on car while riding over bridge. Dilluvio v. City of N. Y., 73 Misc. 122. Motion to set aside verdict. Fall of stone from embankment injuring passenger on passing car. Goeller v. F. J. & G. R. R., 110 App. Div. 620. Verdict, $350. Reversed. Injury by car catching fire through defective electrical equip- ment. Brook v. Brooklyn Union Elevated R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 668. Verdict, $1,250. Affirmed. Passenger on passing car hit by pole attached to building. Sheppard v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 146 App. Div. 806. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. 248 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Miscellaneous Slipping from rail of track into rut extending across cross walk causing injury. Ross v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 104 App. Div. 378. Supreme Court order, affirmed. Passenger alighting from car and catching foot in fender in pass- ing in front of it and thrown to the ground. Poland v. United Traction Co., 107 App. Div. 561. Verdict, $800. Re- versed. Hit on abdomen by defendant’s turn stile and injured. Hynds v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 111 App. Div. 339. Verdict, $6,000. Affirmed. Plaintiff hit by car while standing on vehicle near rail. Volosko v. Interurban St. R. R., 118 App. Div. 747. Judgment for defend- ant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Collision with trolley pole of street car while climbing into fire patrol wagon. Lambert v. Westchester Electric Co., 115 App. Div. 78. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Slipping of foot into hole in cross walk, adjoining rail, catching foot. - Ross v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 116 App. Div. 507. Verdict, $15,000. Re- versed. Electric shock received by stepping on electrically charged rail. Sullivan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 117 App. Div. 784. Verdict, $200. Reversed. ° Hit by trolley car while unloading blocks from vehicle. Volosko v. Interurban St. R. R., 190 N. Y. 206. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Horse shying at noise of car on releasing air brakes, causing in- jury. Hoag v. South Dover Marble Co., 192 N. Y. 412. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 120 App. Div. 892. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 249 Street Railroad, Miscellaneous—Continued Hole left in pavement near track causing fall and injury by car. Schuster v. F.S. 8. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R. Co., 192 N. Y. 403. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Affirming, 118 App. Div. 197 or 147. Plaintiff thrown out of vehicle, horse frightened by sound of gong. Sauter v. International R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 400. Verdict, $250. Af- firmed. Slipping on worn rail and falling into hole. Wilson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 129 App. Div. 125. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Passenger on scenic railroad thrown by sudden lurch of car. Lumsden v. Thompson Scenic R. R., 180 App. Div. 209. Verdict, $3,000. Judgment and order reversed. New Trial ordered. Injured by collision between engine and obstructions along track. O’Keefe v. Degnon Realty Terminal Improvement Co., 141 App. Div. 701. Verdict, $1,500. Train hit by girder while passing over bridge. Fay v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 129 App. Div. 375. Verdict, $1,500. Ap- peal from judgment Supreme Court. Fall of trolley wire causing injury. Hollis v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 128 App. Div. 821. Verdict, $750. Re- versed. Foot crushed between platform of car. Coady v. Brooklyn H. R. R., 128 App. Div. 856. Verdict, $150. Reversed. Hit by switch handle caused by being struck by wheels of car. Loushay »v. Erie R. R. Co., 95 App. Div. 102. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall of fare register in car hitting plaintiff. Weir v. Union R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 109. Order setting aside verdict. Passenger on foot board of car hit by vehicle in street. Walsh v. Interurban St. R. R., 50 Misc. 637. City Court judgment for defendant, reversed. 250 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Miscellaneous—Continued Passenger injured by door closed on his hand by conductor. Moses Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 113 App. Div. 577. Munic- ipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Passenger injured by electric shock from breaking of guard wire allowing contact with hood of car. Dean v. Tarrytown, White Plains & M. R. R., 113 App. Div. 437. Ver- dict, $1,375. Reversed. Passenger hit by trolley pole while passing along running board of car. Tietz v. International R. R. Co., 186 N. Y. 347. Judgment Appellate Division for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 107 App. Div. 620. Hit by trolley wheel flying off front of trolley car, passing through transom window. Kehoe v. International R. R. Co., 56 Misc. 138. Verdict, $1,500. Hit by beam in fence along excavation while standing on running board. Kramer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 190 N. Y. 310. Judgment Municipal Court, reversed. Reversing, 114 App. Div. 804. Passenger standing on running board hit by passing car. Gregory v. Elmira W. L. & R. R. Co.,190 N. Y. 363. Judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Reversing, 107 App. Div. 630. Riding on bumper, shoulder caught by trolley rope breaking glass. Feldheim v. Brooklyn & Queens Co. R. R., 122 App. Div. 8838. Judgment Municipal Court, reversed. Passenger falling by sudden starting of car. Masterson v. Crosstown St. R. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 499. Judgment, reversed. Injury to. passenger while crossing street bridge. Meschneck v. Brooklyn & Queens Co. R. R., 125 App. Div. 265. Complaint properly dismissed, affirmance. Passenger injured by runaway horse plunging into car. Ellis v. N. Y. City R. R. and Park & Tilford Co., 127 App. Div. 328. Judg- ment for defendant affirmed in part and reversed in part. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 251 Street Railroad, Miscellaneous—Continued Passenger thrown by sudden starting of car before reaching seat. McGlynn v. Nassau Electric R. R., 128 App. Div. 866. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. : Slipping into space between platform and car at station. Becker v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 128 App. Div. 455. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Passenger on car injured by fall of bridge while crossing. People v. Syracuse Rapid Transit Co., 129 App. Div. 800. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Passenger on car injured by electric shock. Endres v. International R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 785. Verdict, $575. Re- versed. Passenger on car injured by collision of car with another car at street crossing. Hirschberg v. Brooklyn H. R. R., 134 App. Div. 629. Appeal from order granting new trial, affirmed. Obstructions on track injuring passenger in car. Miller v. Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co., 134 App. Div. 212. Verdict, $800. Affirmed. Street car suddenly starting and injuring passenger. Foden v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 136 App. Div. 765. Verdict, $250. Re- versed. Passenger forced against seat and injured, car starting suddenly. Viemeister v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 91 App. Div. 510. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Passenger thrown against seat by sudden starting of car when entering the same. Plum v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 91 App. Div. 420. Verdict, $10,333.33. Affirmed. Passenger thrown down in car while grasping strap. Goodkin v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 93 App. Div. 153. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. 252 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Miscellaneous—Continued Passenger thrown down by sudden lurch of car when starting. Harty v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 95 App. Div. 119. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. ° Passenger kicked by fellow passenger entering car through win- dow. Grogan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 97 App Div. 413. Motion to dismiss complaint, reversed. Passenger’s fingers caught in door by sudden closing of door by employee. O’Rourke v. Interborough R. T. Co., 46 Misc. 453. Municipal judgment for plaintiff reversed. Passenger injured in rush of passengers from car following ex- plosion on passing car. ‘German v. Brooklyn H. R. R., 107 App. Div. 354. Verdict, $750. Affirmed. Passenger kicked in face by person entering car window. Grogan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 107 App. Div. 254. Setting aside verdict, reversed. Passenger thrown down when about to alight from car by sudden starting of car. Raynor v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 106 App. Div. 449. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Passenger thrown down by car starting suddenly after boarding it. Hirsch v. Union R. R. Co., 48 Misc. 527. City Court judgment for plaintiff. Passenger standing in aisle thrown down by starting of train. Norminton v. Interborofgh R. T. Co., 48 Mise. 526. Municipal: Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Bruising of passenger’s hand by slamming of car door. Muller v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 48 Mise. 524. City Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Passenger thrown down by sudden stopping of train as he walked to the car door. Neadham ». Interborough R. T. Co., 48 Mise. 522. Municipal Court judg- ment for plaintiff, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 253 Street Railroad, Miscellaneous—Continued Fall of passenger in car by starting of car before reaching seat. Morrow v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 119 App. Div. 22. Verdict, $500. Affirmed. Struck by fender in rear of car while rounding curve. Matulewicz v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 107 App. Div. 230. Verdict, $900. Reversed. Pedestrian tripping over wire protecting grass plot at railroad station. Clyde v. Brooklyn Union Elevated R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 705. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Street Railroad, Pedestrian Hit by Car Hit by car while walking on track in country highway at night. Neary v. Citizen’s R. R. Light & Power Co., 110 App. Div. 769. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Hit by tail of car in rounding curve throwing plaintiff against passing truck. .Kaufmann »v. Interurban St. R. R., 43 Misc. 634. Verdict, $1,500 for one, $150 for the other, reversed. Pedestrian hit by car while crossing street. Poole v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 83 App. Div. 235. Verdict, $500. Re- versed. Hit by overhanging end of electric car while working on subway in street. Hennessey v. 42nd St. R. R. Co., 44 Misc. 198. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Hit by electric car while working near railroad track. Hennessey v. 42nd St. & St. Nicholas Ave. R. R., 103 App. Div. 384. Ver- dict, $750. Reversed. Hit by electric car while-attempting to save boy. Manzella v. Rochester R. R. Co., 105 App. Div. 12. Judgment for de- fendant. Non-suit granted by court after trial. Motion for new trial granted. Pedestrian struck by step of street car approaching him from behind at rapid speed. Dooley v. Union R. R. Co., 106 App. Div. 397. Verdict, $750. Reversed. 204 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Pedestrian Hit by Car—Continued Employee of street department struck by car while sweeping track. Reilly v. Interurban St. R. R., 108 App. Div. 254. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Hit by overhanging end of car turning curve in’track. McCabe »v. Interurban St. R. R., 49 Mise. 251. City Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Pedestrian stepping into depression in pavement between rails and run over by trolley car. Schuster v. 42nd St. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R., 118 App. Div. 197. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Hit and run down in street by car in charge of boy. Sullivan v. Richmond Light & R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 175. Verdict, $6,000. Affirmed. Car striking pedestrian on track. Lamb v. Union R. R. Co., 195 N. Y. 260. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 125 App. Div. 260. Hit by car backing when running after it. Engler v. International R. R., 1388 App. Div. 659. Verdict, $650. Reversed. Pedestrian injured by stumbling over rail projecting above surface of ground. Thompson »v. United Traction Co., 147 App. Div. 392. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Pedestrian struck by ¢ar at street crossing. Hollon v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 784. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. : Street Railroad, Passengers Thrown or Falling from Car Passenger on running board of car falling by reason of jumping motion of car. Moskowitz v. Brooklyn H. R. R., 89 App. Div. 425. Judgment for defend- ant, affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 205 Street Railroad, Passengers Thrown or Falling from Car—Continued Passenger thrown from car by sudden jerk of car. Sheeron v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R., 89 App. Div. 338. Verdict, $4,000. Affirmed. Passenger thrown from car striking pillar at station by sudden starting of car. Mulligan v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 89 App. Div. 207. Verdict, $10,500. Affirmed. Passenger thrown from car while passing around curve. Gatens v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 89 App. Div. 311. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Hit by conductor and knocked under car causing injury. Hewson v. Interurban St. R. R., 95 App. Div. 112. Verdict, $7,000. Af- firmed. Passenger pushed or jumping from car in panic caused by fire on car. Dorff v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 95 App. Div. 82. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Passenger standing on rear platform caused to fall, striking pro- jection by collision. McCormick v. Rochester R. R., 133 App. Div. 760. Verdict, $12,958.331/s. Affirmed. Falling from platform of car by sudden starting of car. Berkowsky v. N. Y. City R. R., 127 App. Div. 544. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Passenger thrown from car during excitement due to explosion on boarding car. Williams v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 97 App. Div. 133. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Passenger in excitement of accident thrown or jumping from car. Stern v. Westchester R. R. Co., 99 App. Div. 491. Judgment for defend- ant, reversed. Thrown from car by sudden starting of car while plaintiff was boarding same. Gleason v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 99 App. Div. 209. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. 256 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Passengers Thrown or Falling from Car—Continued Passenger thrown from car and against projection near track by sudden starting of car. . Berry v. Utica Belt Line St. R. R., 181 N. Y. 198. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Thrown from car by sudden loosening of brake while standing on front platform. McLaughlin v. Interurban St. R. R., 101 App. Div. 134. Dismissal of com- plaint, judgment for defendant, affirmed.. Pushed or falling between cars while riding on platform causing injury. Kohn »v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 104 App. Div. 237. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. , Thrown from car by motorman sustaining injuries. Barry v. Union R. R. Co., 105 App. Div. 520. Verdict $2,000. Reversed. Falling from moving car while standing on front platform by sudden movement of car. Kleffman v. Dry Dock E. B. & B. R. R. Co., 104 App. Div. 416. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Passenger thrown to street by sudden starting of car when pre- paring to alight. Murphy v. Union R. R. Co., 47 Misc. 672. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Thrown under car when riding on platform by sudden depression in track. Depew v. N. Y. City*®R. R., 112 App. Div. 260. Verdict, $14,000. Re- versed. Falling or thrown from car when rounding curve. Kiefer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 111 App. Div. 409. Verdict, $300. Re- versed. Passenger pushed from step of overcrowded car by fellow pas- senger. MeVay v. Brooklyn & Queens Co. & Suburban R. R. Co., 113 App. Div. 724. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 257 Street Railroad, Passengers Thrown or Falling from Car—Continued Passenger thrown from car while standing on running board of crowded car. Mullane v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Mise. 24. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Passenger falling from car by: opening of platform gate against which passenger was leaning. Greer v. Union R. R. Co., 50 Misc. 560. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Passenger thrown or pushed or jumping from car during panic caused by fire. Fanizzi v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 113 App. Div. 440. Judgment, af- firmed. Knocked off from running board of car by obstruction.. Kramer v. Brooklyn H. R. R., 114 App. Div. 804. Municipal Court judg- ment for defendant, affirmed. Falling from platform of surface car by sudden starting of same. Walsh v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 797. Verdict, $500. Affirmed. Passenger falling by sudden starting of car when about to enter. Schierloh v. Interurban St. R. R., 115 App. Div. 455. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Street Railroad, Passenger Injured While Boarding Cars Passenger falling from car by sudden starting of car while board- ing. Doering v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 42 Misc. 192. City Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Passenger attempting to board car, directed to take another car and pushed against dash board, receiving injury. Ferris v. Interurban St. R. R., 89 App. Div. 361. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Passenger on platform pushed by crowd against car sustaining injury. Ditmar v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 91 App. Div. 378. Verdict, $3,000. Affirmed. 258 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Passenger Injured While Boarding Cars—Continued Passenger thrown down by sudden starting of car when boarding. Hanan v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 103 App. Div. 402. Verdict $3,150. Reversed. Passenger thrown by sudden starting of car while attempting to board same. : Clinton v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 91 App. Div. 374. Verdict, $200. Affirmed. Passenger thrown down by sudden starting of car while about to board car. Wimmer »v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 92 App. Div. 258. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. Passenger on car injured by sudden starting of car while boarding. Ward v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 99 App. Div. 126. Verdict, $1,000. Re- versed. Passenger injured by negligence in starting car which plaintiff was about to board. Surkin v. Interborough St. R. R., 45 Misc. 407. Municipal judgment for defendant, affirmed. Thrown from car by sudden starting of car while plaintiff was boarding same. Gleason v. Metropolitan St. R. R,, 99 App. Div. 209. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Fall from car by sudden starting of same while boarding causing plaintiff’s hand to be run over. Fine v. Interurban St. R. R., 45 Mise. 587. City Court judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. e Passenger’s foot caught between moving train and platform when boarding train. Brown v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 105 App. Div. 395. Verdict, $5,000. Re- versed. Passenger falling by sudden starting of car when attempting to board. Sallie v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 110 App. Div. 665. Dismissal of complaint, reversed, A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 259 Street Railroad, Passenger Injured While Boarding Cars—Continued Fall by sudden starting of car when plaintiff was about to board same, Rudomin v. Interurban St. R. R., 111 App. Div. 548. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. ' Plaintiff injured by sudden starting of car while attempting to board same. Fischel: v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 118 App. Div. 116. Order setting aside verdict. Passenger falling from step of moving car when attempting to board after door was closed. Sheehan v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 143 App. Div. 621. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall of passenger caused by starting of car while passenger at- tempting to board. Egg v. Rochester R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 804. Verdict, $300. Reversed. Passenger taking hold of gates on boarding car, receiving injury. Stevenson v. Joline, 127 App. Div. 181. Judgment Municipal Court for plaintiff, affirmed. Passenger falling from platform of car by opening of gate against which he was leaning. Englehardt v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 52 Misc. 474. Judgment Municipal Court, reversed. Falling from platform caused by sudden starting of car. Kleffmann v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 334. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Passenger falling or thrown by stepping into hole on alighting from car. Miller v. International R. R. Co., 52 Mise. 344. J udgment Municipal Court, affirmed. Dismissing complaint. Thrown from platform of car on approaching curve at rapid speed. Ludinsky v. N. Y. City R. R., 53 Misc. 572. Dismissal of complaint, re- versed. 260 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Passenger Injured While Boarding Cars—Continued Passenger thrown to street by sudden starting of car by signal to conductor. Keenan v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 118 App. Div. 56. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Sudden starting of car throwing passenger to the ground causing injury. Zampelli v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 55 Mise. 218. Judgment Municipal Court for defendant, reversed. Passenger on rear platform thrown off by sudden starting of car. Garner v. 42nd St. R. R. Co. 56 Misc. 500. Judgment Municipal Court, affirmed. Boy jumping on crowded car pushed off by motion of driver. Dubnow »v. N. Y. City R. R., 122 App. Div. 723. Verdict, $2,500. Af- firmed. Passenger thrown to ground by sudden starting of car. Carey v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 124 App. Div. 524. Verdict, $2,500. _Affirmed. Passenger thrown to ground by sudden starting of car while attempting to board. Woods v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 128 App. Div. 235. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Passenger pushed from running board by conductor. McGrath v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 63. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. “ Passenger thrown from car by attempting to alight before car stopped and suddenly starting again. Dwyer v. Auburn & Syracuse Electric R. R., 181 App. Div. 477. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Falling off from moving street car while standing on running board intending to get a free ride. Prenderville v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R. Co., 181 App. Div. 303. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 261 Street Railroad, Passenger Injured While Boarding Cars—Continued Passenger thrown to ground by sudden starting of car when partially on the car. Hirschberg v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & Suburban R. R., 134 App. Div. 629. Appeal from order granting new trial, affirmed. Passenger injured by being thrown-from car step by collision between car and wagon. Berkowitz v. Consolidated Gas ‘Co., 134 App. Div. 389. Appeal from order. Passenger falling from running board on curve. Maercker v. Brooklyn H. R. R., 187 App. Div. 49. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Appeal from order setting aside verdict for defendant, reversed. Collision between cars injuring motorman. Forton v. Crosstown St. R. R., 187 App. Div. 420. Verdict, $1,250. Re- versed. Passenger thrown from car by sudden motion of car. Manning v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 187 App. Div. 860. Verdict, $350. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Passenger pushed off by overcrowded car. Knaisch v. Joline, 138 App. Div. 854. Reversed. Non-suit. Fall from car by sudden starting while passenger attempting to board. Klein v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 55 Mise. 211. Judgment for defendant. City Court, reversed. Passenger thrown from car by sudden starting while attempting to board. Schwartz v. N. Y. City R. R., 55 Misc. 214. Judgment Municipal Court, reversed. Passenger dragged. by car while attempting to board car. Johnston v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 120 App. Div. 456.. Judgment Municipal Court, reversed. - Holding on to car and falling into excavation in street. Howard v. 42nd St. M. & St. Nicholas Ave. R. R., 125 App. Div. 776. Ver- dict, $2,500 Reversed. 262 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Passenger Injured While Boarding Cars—Continued Knocked off from running board on car by another car while trying to get on. Kriedermacher v. Union R. R. Co., 59 Mise. 410. Motion for reargument of motion for new trial denied. Passenger injured by slipping between car and platform in board- ing car. Smith v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 129 App. Div. 635. Verdict, $500. Re- versed. Decedent killed by being thrown under train by sudden starting while getting on. Gaebler v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 130 App. Div. 881. (Mem.) Verdict, ; $9,875. Affirmed. Injury to passenger while attempting to board elevated train being thrown and dragged between the side of the building and the train. Wehn v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 182 App. Div. 841. Verdict for defendant, reversed. Passenger caught by approaching car when attempting to board car. Christensen 7. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 184 App. Div. 703. Dismissing complaint, reversed. Car failing to stop on signal given by pedestrian, who fell over heap of snow left by railroad at point of taking on passengers. Trieber v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 184 App. Div. 661. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Injury by slipping while attempting to board car. Flynn v. Joline, 135 App. Biv. 291. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Street Railroad, Passengers Injured While Alighting Passenger stepping from car while in motion. MeNeece v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 830. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Passenger injured by sudden starting of car while alighting. Bente v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 90 App. Div. 213. Verdict, $3,000. Af- firmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 263 Street Railroad, Passengers Injured While Alighting—Continued Passenger on alighting from car struck by wagon travelling in same direction as car. Schoeller v. Metropolitan Express Co., 108 App. Div. 226. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal] of complaint. Thrown by sudden starting of car when attempting to alight. Tyrrell v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 110 App. Div. 9. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall of passenger into hole along side of track and car. _ Holzhauser v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 43 Mise. 145. Motion to set aside verdict, denied. Thrown to ground by sudden starting of car while alighting therefrom. Higgins v. United Traction Co., 96 App. Div. 69. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Passenger thrown to ground while alighting from car. Maloney v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 95 App. Div. 372 or 393. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Passenger thrown to ground by sudden starting of car while alighting. McDonough ». 3rd Ave. R. R. Co., 95 App. Div. 311. Judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Passenger injured by sudden starting of car while alighting. Gunther v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 45 Misc. 117. Motion to set aside ver- dict granted. Passenger injured by sudden starting of car while attempting to alight. Leonard v. Union R. R. Co. of N. Y., 98 App. Div. 204. Verdict, $2,000. Affirmed. Thrown to ground while attempting to alight from car by sudden starting of car. Dambmann »v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 180 N. Y. 384. Judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. _ Passenger thrown to ground while alighting by sudden starting of car causing injury. Johnson v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 101 App. Div. 65. Verdict, $500. Affirmed. 264 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Passengers Injured While Alighting—Continued Passenger alighting from car thrown to the ground by sudden starting of car. Vonderahe v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 109 App. Div. 28. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. : Passenger thrown to ground by sudden starting of car when about to alight. O’Brien v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 109 App. Div. 833. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Thrown to ground while alighting' from car by sudden starting of car. -Maurer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R.; 110 App. Div. 36. County Court judg- ment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall of passenger by sudden starting of car when preparing to alight. Schu v. Union R. R. Co. of N. Y. City, 112 App. Div. 239. Verdict, $3,500. Reversed. Passenger falling while alighting from car by sudden starting of car. Greehy v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 112 App. Div. 211. Verdict, $850. Re- versed. Plaintiff injured by sudden starting of car while attempting to alight. Gleason v. Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 143 App. Div. 884. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Thrown to pavement from car by sudden starting of car when attempting to alight. Blair v. Utica & Mohawk Valley R. R., 112 App. Div. 609. Verdict, $1,125.10. Reversed. Falling between car and railroad platform. Coogan v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 50 Misc. 562. Verdict, $350. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Hit by electric car while crossing street. Beirne v. Union R. R. Co. of N. Y., 114 App. Div. 90. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 265 Street Railroad, Passengers Injured While Alighting—Continued Jumping from step of car which had stopped at plaintiff’s home station. Truesdell v. Erie R. R., 114 App. Div. 34. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Passenger jumping from car frightened by explosion and fire in controller box. Paine v. Geneva, Waterloo S. F. & C. L. Traction Co., 115 App. Div. 729. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Thrown from platform by sudden starting of car when attempting to alight. Adams v.‘N. Y. City R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 315. Verdict, $10,000. Re- versed. Passenger injured while alighting from car, causing fall. Mackey v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 467. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Passenger falling or thrown by stepping into hole on alighting from car. Miller v. International R. R. Co., 52 Misc. 344. Judgment Municipal Court, affirmed. Passenger about to alight, with one foot on ground, thrown by sudden starting of car. McArthur v. N. Y. City R. R., 53 Misc. 292. Verdict, $121.56. Reversed. Passenger thrown to ground by sudden starting of car when alighting. Klein v. N. Y. City R. R., 53 Misc. 574. Judgment Municipal Court, re- versed. Passenger thrown to street by sudden starting of car when try- ing to alight. Murray »v. Interurban St. R. R., 118 App. Div. 35. Verdict, $6,000. Re- versed. Defective car step causing plaintiff’s foot to be caught in hole, causing her to jump in alighting. Truesdell v. Erie R. R., 119 App. Div. 371. Dismissal of complaint, re- versed. 266 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Passengers Injured While Alighting—Continued Passenger jumping from car by order of motorman in presence of apprehended danger. Grunfelder v. Brooklyn H. R. R., 143 App. Div. 89. Verdict, $3,500. Af- firmed. Stepping into trench on alighting from car. Walsh v. Richmond Light & R. R. Co., 124 App. Div. 533. Verdict, $2,000. Affirmed. Fall of passenger from car by sudden starting of car when alight- ing. Blair v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & Suburban R. R., 141 App. Div. 848. Mu- nicipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Passenger alighting from car injured by car going in opposite direction. Vandenbout 7. Rochester R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 844. Motion for new trial, plaintiff’s exceptions sustained. Hit by automobile while alighting from car. Brewster v. Barker, 129 App. Div. 724. Verdict, $175. Reversed. Passenger thrown to ground when alighting from street car. Reuter v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 141 App. Div. 669. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Injured by fall caused by car starting as plaintiff was alighting. Riccio v. International R. R. Co., 63 Misc. 588. Motion for new trial denied. Passenger thrown from car which had stopped by the sudden starting of the car while getting off. : Olson v. Brooklyn Heiglfts R. R. Co., 133 App. Div. 445. Verdict, $700. Affirmed. Passenger alighting from car and falling by car suddenly starting. Brown v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 132 App. Div. 276. Verdict, $500. Affirmed. Falling from car suddenly starting when attempting to get off after stopping. Walsh v. Nassau Electric Co., 183 App. Div. 144. Municipal Court judg- ment for plaintiff, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 267 Street Railroad, Passengers Injured While Alighting—Continued Passenger alighting from car on snow bank made by car, falling and receiving injuries. Speck v. International R. R. Co., 133 App. Div. 802. Verdict, $1,600. Reversed. Injured while alighting from car from failure to stop. McGraw »v. Nassau Electric Co., 184 App. Div. 257. Municipal Court judg- ment for plaintiff, reversed. Person alighting from car injured by automobile. Vilicki x. N. Y. Transportation Co., 65 Misc. 43. Municipal Court judg- ment for plaintiff, reversed. Street Railroad, Pedestrians Hit by Car While Crossing Track Struck by car while crossing street. Mauer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 87 App. Div. 119. Verdict, $500. Af- firmed. Struck by car while crossing track. Thompson v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 89 App. Div. 10. Verdict, $9,500. Re- versed. Struck by car while attempting to cross track. Lynch v. 3rd Ave. R. R. Co., 88 App. Div. 604. Verdict, $870. Reversed. Hit by electric car while crossing street to catch other car. Stillings v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 177 N. Y. 344. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Hit by car while crossing street. Binns v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 89 App. Div. 359. Municipal judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Hit by car while crossing track on rainy night, car suddenly increasing speed. McDermott v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 89 App. Div. 214. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Pedestrian struck by trolley car. Lamb v. Union R. R. Co., 125 App. Div. 286. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. 268 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—-FACTS Street Railroad, Pedestrians Hit by Car While Crossing Track—Continued Struck by street car while crossing roadway. Boyce v. N. Y. City R. R., 126 App. Div. 248. Verdict, $27,500. Affirmed. Hit by street car while crossing city street. McKinley v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 91 App. Div. 153. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. . Struck by car while crossing track. Monck v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 97 App. Div. 447. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Struck by car while attempting to cross tracks across city street. Sealey v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 97 App. Div. 399. Verdict, $7,000, re- duced to $5,000. Reversed. Hit by car while crossing tracks. Lofsten v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 97 App. Div. 395. Verdict, $100. Af- firmed. Hit by electric car while crossing street through negligence of motorman. Fiori v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 98 App. Div. 49. Verdict, $2,000. Re- versed. Hit by electric car while crossing tracks. Greene v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 100 App. Div. 303. Verdict, $200. Re- versed. Hit by car while crossing track causing alleged injury. Russell v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 104 App. Div. 149. Judgment for de- fendant, affirmed. Child injured while crossing street. Feinstein v. Brooklyn H. R. R. Co., 180 Div. 258. Judgment Municipal Court for plaintiff, reversed. Hit by car while crossing street. Murphy v. Interurban Street R. R., 56 Mise. 598. Order of City Court, reversed. Hit by car while crossing track injuring plaintiff. West v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 105 App. Div. 373. Verdict, $1,000. Re- versed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 269 Street Railroad, Pedestrians Hit by Car While Crossing Track—Continued Struck by electric car while crossing tracks. Cranch v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 107 App. Div. 341. Verdict, $12,500. Affirmed. Hit by electric car while carried across track, by sudden increase of speed of car. Franco v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 108 App. Div. 14. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Hit by electric car when crossing public street. Lofsten v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 184 N. Y. 148. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Hit by car at crossing while crossing track. McEntee v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 110 App. Div. 673. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Hit by street car while crossing tracks. Mathers v. Interurban St: R. R., 112 App. Div. 397. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Pedestrian hit by car when crossing track and mid-way between rails. McCabe ». International R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 710. Verdict, $1,028.50. Reversed. Hit by car while preparing to cross track. Solomon v. N. Y. City R. R., 50 Misc. 557. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. ; Run over by street car while crossing track. Cranch v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 186 N. Y. 310. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 107 App. Div. 341. Struck by surface car and carried on fender, causing injuries. Lawrence v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 114 App. Div. 116. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Hit by car while crossing track. Binder v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Misc. 655. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Pedestrian hit by electric car when attempting to cross street. Duffy v. Interurban St. R. R., 52 Misc. 177. Dismissing complaint, reversed. 270 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Pedestrians Hit by Car While Crossing Track—Continued Pedestrian hit by car when attempting to cross street, view ob- structed. Ring v. Nassau Electric R. R., 115 App. Div. 674. Verdict, $200. Affirmed. Pedestrian struck by car while attempting to cross railroad track. Margulies v. Interurban St. R. R., 116 App. Div. 157. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. Struck by car while crossing track in middle of block. Healy v. United Traction Co., 115 App. Div. 868. Verdict, $4,250. Re- versed. Struck by car while crossing track. Stassen v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 52 Misc. 577. Judgment Municipal Court, reversed. Hit by street car coming from behind while riding on railroad track in street. Romeo v. Union R. R. Co., 52 Misc. 578. Judgment Municipal Court, reversed. Run over by horse car when attempting to cross tracks. Bambace v. Interurban St. R. R., 188 N. Y. 288. Reversed. Hit by car and run over while crossing track. Peterson v. Interurban St. R. R., 118 App. Div. 210. Verdict, $1,000. Re- versed. Hit by street car while crossing street. Padower v. Interurbaf! St. R. R., 119 App. Div. 135. Verdict, $1,350. Reversed. Pedestrian hit by street car while crossing between intersecting streets. Fitzgerald v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 118 App. Div. 3. (Mem.) Verdict, $75. Reversed. Hit by car in sub-way while crossing track. Kupec v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 120 App. Div. 166. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 271 Street Railroad, Pedestrians Hit by Car While Crossing Track—Continued Hit by car while crossing track. Ayres v. 42nd St. M. & St. Nicholas Ave. R. R., 54 Misc. 639. Judgment Municipal Court, reversed. Hit by electric car while crossing track. Jennings v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 121 App. Div. 587. Appeal by plain- tiff from Municipal Judgment, reversed. Hit by street car while crossing street, injuring plaintiff. Robinson v. Union R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 558. Dismissal of complaint, afirmed. Hit by trolley car while crossing street. Brauner v. 3rd Ave. R. R. Co., 122 App. Div. 572. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Hit by trolley car while crossing street. Miller v. Union R. R. Co., 191 N. Y. 77. Judgment, reversed. Reversing, 120 App. Div. 876. Hit by car while attempting to cross track. Baxter v. Auburn & Syracuse El. R. R. Co., 190 N. Y. 489. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 118 App. Div. 19. Hit by car while crossing tracks. McAuliff v. N. Y. City R. R., 122 App. Div. 633. Verdict, $60,000. Re- versed. Struck by car while attempting to cross tracks on slippery street. VanDenhout v. Rochester R. R. Co., 202 N. Y. 61. Judgment, for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 1386 App. Div. 913. Pedestrian injured while crossing track. -Purcell v. Union R. R. Co., 58 Misc. 240. Judgment of City Court of New York, reversed. Hit by car while crossing street. Tully v. N. Y. City R. R., 127 App. Div. 688. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Hit by street car while crossing tracks. Sperry v. Union R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 594. Verdict, $6,500. Affirmed. 272 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Street Railroad, Pedestrians Hit by Car While Crossing Track—Continued Plaintiff struck by car while crossing track at street crossing. Austen v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 131 App. Div. 903. Verdict, $700. Affirmed. Hit by street car while crossing street. Pietraroia v. N. J. & H. R. R. & F. Co., 131 App. Div. 829. Verdict, $7,500. Hit by street car while crossing street. Daly v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 182 App. Div. 359. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Struck by car while crossing track. Wecker v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & L. I. R. R., 186 App. Div. 340. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Street Railroad, Platforms Passenger slipping on icy platform of railroad after storm, re- ceiving injuries. Olopp v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 69 Misc. 595. Municipal Cours judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Slipping on icy station platform and falling in front of train: McGuire v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 104 App. Div. 105. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Surgical Operation Negligence in surgical operation resulting in injury. Brown v. Goffe, 140 App. Div. 353. Verdict, $9,000. Reversed. * Superintendent Superintendent jerking belt in putting it on machine, injuring plaintiff. Kujava v. Irving, 122 App. Div. 375. Verdict, $12,500. Reversed. Skids Falling over skid used to unload goods by curb. Kurlanchick v. Skamberg, 56 Misc. 473. Judgment Municipal Court, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 273 Taxicab Taxicab striking and injuring pedestrian in street. McCahill v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 201 N. Y. 221. Judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Affirming, 135 App. Div. 322. Telegraph Negligent transmission of telegram causing damage. Weld v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., 148 App.. Div. 588. Verdict, $36,684.42. Affirmed. Telephone Shock from wire in contact with electric light wire. Harning v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 111 App. Div. 122. Verdict, $11,000. Affirmed. Fall of telephone pole throwing plaintiff to the ground causing injury while stringing wire. Mullin v. Genesee Co, Elec. L. P. & G. Co., 202 N. Y. 275. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Fall of pole on which plaintiff was climbing to cut wire. LaDuke v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 124 App. Div. 106. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Electric shock from poorly insulated wire. Dutcher v. Rockland Electric Co., 123° App. Div. 765. Verdict, $6,000. Affirmed. Failure or refusal to transmit telephone message. Dearing v. Independent Union Telephone Co., 145 App. Div. 152. Judg- ment for plaintiff, affirmed. Lineman on pole receiving shock through metallic tape being used. Murphy v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 127 App. Div. 450. Verdict, $2,250. Affirmed. . Killed by electric current while stringing wires. Conklin v. Central N. Y. Telephone & Telegraph Co., 180 App. Div. 308. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. 274 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Telephone—Continued Fall of lineman on telephone pole by breaking of. wire. _ Tweed v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 130 App. Div. 231. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Falling of telephone pole causing injury. Griffin v. N. Y. Telephone Co., 141 App. Div. +1. Verdict, $5,320. Reversed. ' Injury to lineman by fall from telephone pole. LaDuke v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 136 App. Div. 136. Verdict, $6,000. Reversed. Theater Fall resulting from breaking of rope when giving spectacular per- formance on stage. Conyes v. Oceanic Amusement Co., 204 N. Y. 408. Appeal from judgment Appellate Division for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 132 App. Div. 933: Spectator at theater given seat under spot light and init by slide dropped by operator. Thomas v. Springer, 134. App. Div. 640. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. Fall of board causing injury. Flanagan v. Goldburg, 187 App. Div. 92. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff. Collapse of theater injuring plaintiff. Abramovitz v. Tenzer, 144 App. Div. 170. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Title e Negligence in making search of. Maucher v. Harlzheim, 121 App. Div. 588. Judgment Municipal Court, affirmed. Tools and Appliances Breaking of box on which plaintiff stood while mixing concrete, causing injury. Michael v. Standard Concrete Steel Co., 55 Misc. 255. Judgment for plain- tiff, Municipal Court, affirmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 275 Tools and Appliances—Continued Hammer head flying off striking plaintiff because of defect. Gallo v, Dunn, 71 Mise. 132. City Court judgment, reversed, for plaintiff. Hit by particles of broken belt of defective construction. Huber v. Whale Creek Iron Works, 125 App. Div. 184. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Cars of contractor with no brakes, running down incline causing injury. Lane v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 125 App. Div. 808. Verdict, $16,500, reversed. Car with no brakes running off track into excavation. Evans v. Pearson & Son, Incorporated, 125 App. Div. 666. Verdict, $6,000. Affirmed. Fall of material because of defective tools and appliances fur- nished. Gorman v. Millikan, 142 App. Div. 207. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Explosion of fireworks device caused by crude or defective tool in construction. Paul v. Consolidated Fireworks Co., 133 App. Div. 310. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Cleat pulling off from board used for smoothing rollers, causing plaintiff to pitch forward catching hand in roller. McMillan v. Minetto Shade Cloth Co., 134 App. Div. 28. Verdict, $2,000. Breaking of wrench supplied as tool to defendant’s employee while endeavoring to pull beam into place. Aitken v. Cornell Co., 130 App. Div. 824. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Torpedo Torpedo found on railroad track, exploding, causing injury. Holmes v. D. & H. Co., 128 App. Div. 24. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Trackwalker Run over in switch yard by failure to have rules preventing acci- dent. Bell v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 128 App. Div. 730. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. 276 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Trespasser Boy picking coal on tracks struck by train backing down upon him. Riordan v. N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 41 Misc. 399. Motion to set aside verdict by defendant granted. Plaintiff shot by game keeper while trespassing on defendant’s premises. Magar v. Hammond, 95 App. Div. 249. Verdict, $13,000. Affirmed. Boy thrown from street car by motorman sustaining injury. Barry v. Union R. R. Co., 105 App. Div. 520. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Boy stealing ride on car, shot by employee of railroad. Sharp v. Erie R. R., 184 N. Y. 100. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Trespasser hit by barrel passing down cable way on defendant’s premises. Weitzmann v. Barker Asphalt Co., 129 App. Div. 448. Verdict, $10,000. Affirmed. Trespasser on railroad track caught foot in rails, defendant failing to stop train, although signals given and running over plaintiff causing injury. Neuberger v. Long Island R. R. Co., 131 App. Div. 885. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Trespasser on railroad struck by locomotive. Marra v. N. Y. Central & H. R..R. R. Co., 189 App. Div. 707. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Trestle Fall of trestle throwing plaintiff into the water and causing in- jury. . Mengle v. McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., 89 App. Div. 334. Judg- ment for defendant, reversed.. Dismissal of complaint. Fall of trestle on which plaintiff was pushing loaded truck. Ristau v. Coe Co., 120 App. Div. 478. Dismissal of complaint. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 277 Tuberculosis Resulting from blow received while boarding car. Roenbeck v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 123 App. Div. 606. Verdict, $9,000. Affirmed. Tunnel Fall of stone from roof of tunnel killing intestate. Bertolami v. United Engineering & Contracting Co., 120 App. Div. 192. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Fall of material from roof of subway while being raised. Ortolano v. Degnon Contracting Co., 120 App. Div. 59. Verdict, $900. Reversed. . Turn Stile Hit in abdomen by defendant’s turn stile and injured. Hynds v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 111 App. Div. 339. Verdict, $6,000. Affirmed. Unloading Rails fall on servant while. being unloaded. Vincenzo v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 126 App. Div. 481 or 484. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Valves ‘Valves of boiler open, increased pressure and blowing out boiler plug injuring plaintiff. Utter v. International Paper Co., 134 App. Div. 806. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Vehicles Collision between, causing injury to plaintiff. McGahie v. McLennen, 86 App. Div. 263. Verdict, $58.25. Affirmed. Vehicle struck by car while crossing track. Schmedding v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 85 App. Div. 24. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. 278 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Vehicles—C ontinued Woman hit by wagon on stepping off of track to avoid car. Mulligan v. 3rd Ave. R. R. Co., 87 App. Div. 320. Verdict, $800. Affirmed. Hit by fire patrol while attempting to rescue persons. Muhs ». Fire Ins. Salvage Corps of Long Island, 89 App. Div. 389. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Child run over and killed in public street by vehicle. Weintraub v. Guilfoyle, 89 App. Div. 328. Judgment for defendant, re- versed. Hit by car; turning out to avoid one car hit by another. Pritchard v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 89 App. Div. 269. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissing complaint. : Child run over by wheels of wagon while in the street. Carr v. Merchant’s Union Ice Co., 91 App. Div. 162. Reversed, verdict, $900. Thrown from wagon by its going into depression in street. Decker v. City of New York, 147 App. Div. 691. New trial granted. Truckman injured by falling freight caused by collision between cars while loading truck. Fisher v. N. Y. Dock Co., 91 App. Div. 526. Motion for new trial by plain- tiff granted. Plaintiff caught between pole of wagon and vehicle next ahead. Steinacker v. Hills Bros. Co., 91 App. Div. 521. Verdict, $5,000. Affirmed. Party crushed between truck and boxes by backing of truck on pier. ® Powles v. Halstead et al., 93 App. Div. 549. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Child playing in street, run over by defendant’s wagon. Burke v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 98 App. Div. 219. Verdict, $10,500. Affirmed. Struck and run over by truck backed by hand on incline across sidewalk. Wilkins v. Nassau N. D. E. Co., 98 App. Div. 180. Verdict, $2,500. Re- versed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 279 Vehicles—Continued Driver of vehicle driving into hole in ditch of highway. King ». Village of Fort Ann, 180 N. Y. 496. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Hit by team while crossing street. Perez v. Sandrowitz, 180 N. Y. 397. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Reversing, 99 App. Div. 262. Hit by wagon after its collision with car of street railroad. Iaquinto v. Bauer, 104 App. Div. 56. Order denying new trial. Pedestrian struck by horse and wagon at street intersection driven by defendant’s servant. Mead v. Huber Brewery, 104 App. Div. 10. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Dismissal of complaint. Passenger of car while alighting struck by wagon travelling in same direction as car. Schoeller v. Metropolitan Express Co., 108 App. Div.'226. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Fall from wagon driven across railroad track while engine ap- proaching. Milliman v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 109 App. Div. 139. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Pedestrian hit by cab when crossing street. West v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 47 Misc. 603. City Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Plaintiff run over by truck driven by defendant’s servant. Johnson v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 143 App. Div. 926. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Vehicle colliding with building material in public street injuring driver. Mulvey v. City of N. Y., 114 App. Div. 526. Verdict, $1,000. .Affirmed. Plaintiff riding in carriage driven by another colliding with ob- struction in street. Pack v. City of N. Y., 51 Misc. 652. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Dismissing complaint. 280 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Vehicles—Continued Collision with trolley pole while climbing into fire patrol wagon. Lambert v. Westchester Elec. R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 78. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Hit by backing vehicle while standing in drive way of pier. Hopper v. Benne, 114 App. Div. 572. Verdict, $2,000. ‘ Reversed. Thrown out of wagon by jerking of horse springing under whip of driver. Gunderson v.. Eastern Brewing Co., 71 Misc. 519. Motion to set aside verdict for plaintiff and new trial. Fall of load from loaded truck which plaintiff was assisting to unload. Rogers v. Jones, 115 App. Div. 576. Dismissal‘of complaint, affirmed. Fall from coal wagon by losing balance and defective tail piece. Mulligan v. Thompson Bros. 143 App. Div. 423. Verdict, $1,000. Re- versed. Collision between automobile and horse and wagon on highway causing injury. Mendelson v. Van Rensselaer, 118 App. Div. 516. Judgment County Court, reversed. Collision of truck which plaintiff was driving, with street car. Heckmuller v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 54 Misc. 541. Order of Municipal Court, affirmed. Fall over rope connecting two vehicles drawn through street. Young v. Hermann, 119 App. Div. 445. Verdict, $3,500. Affirmed. Child knocked down by horse while driver of vehicle not looking. Gelderman v. Curtis, 120 App. Div. 400. Verdict, $1,400. Reversed. Pushing down tail board of wagon injuring plaintiff’s hand. Hope v. Scranton & Lehigh Coal Co., 120 App. Div. 595. Judgment Munic- ipal Court, reversed. Hit by truck driven in street. Ackerman v. Livingston, 57 Misc. 379. Appeal from order. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 281 Vehicles—Continuéed Collision with trolley pole injuring fireman mounting patrol wagon. Lambert v. Westchester Elec. Co., 191 N. Y. 248. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Collision with telephone pole while turning to avoid automobile. Scofield v. Town of Poughkeepsie, 122 App. Div. 868. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Collision between vehicle and car while crossing track. Huther v. Nassau ‘Electric R. R., 142 App. Div. 522. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Child’s leg crushed by vehicle while sitting on curb. Barretto v. Moquin Offerman Wells Coal Co., 142 App. Div. 504. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed unless verdict reduced to $1,500. Collision of sprinkler wagon with trolley car while crossing street. Geisendorfer v. Union R. R. Co., 124 App. Div. 597. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Pedestrian run down by horse while crossing street. Hickman v. Schimper & Co., 125 App. Div. 216. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Collision overturning plaintiff’s vehicle causing injury. Huber v. Whale Creek Iron Works, 125 App. Div. 189. Verdict, $1,500. Affirmed. Loaded vehicle overturned by defective highway injuring driver. MeDowell v. City of Auburn, 126 App. Div. 173. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Truck colliding with trolley pole throwing driver and causing injury. Lanigan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 125 App. Div. 622. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Child run over by truck in street. Hallett v. Liebmann’s Sons Brewing Co., 129 App. Div. 617. Dismissing complaint, reversed. Truckman injured by falling boxes improperly piled. Rashkoff v. Erie R. R., 141 App. Div. 624. Judgment, reversed. Dismissing complaint. 282 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Vehicles—Continued Auto truck left in street, starting by acts of children causing it to run, doing injury. Vincent v. Crandall & Godley Co., 131 App. Div. 200. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Collision of vehicle with locomotive crossing railroad. Foley v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 182 App. Div. 506. Verdict, $1,100. Af- firmed. Snow shoveler thrown from vehicle by sudden starting of horse. Packtor v. City of N. Y., 132 App. Div. 373. Dismissal of complaint, af- firmed. Driver backing down embankment unguarded on side of high- way by careless driving. Wade v. Town of Worcester, 134 App. Div. 51. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Injury to child while playing near vehicle, by careless driver. Jones v. Weigand, 134 App. Div. 644. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Running down pedestrian in public street while waiting for car. Muldoon »v. City Fireproofing Co., 184 App. Div. 453. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Injury by collision, truck driver keeping too close to vehicle. Parodi v. Tilford, 186 App. Div. 734. Municipal Court judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Collision between vehicles causing death. Long v. City of N. Y., 186 App. Div. 656. Verdict, $10,000. Reversed. Broken pole overturning truck causing injury. Limerick v. Holdsworth, 136 App. Div. 323. Verdict, $30,000. Reversed. Fall from rear end of express wagon. Hayden v. Joline, 187 App. Div. 755. Verdict, $7,500. Reversed. Vehicle in which plaintiff was riding colliding with car. Doctoroff v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 55 Misc. 216. Dismissing complaint, reversed. Struck by wagon passing through street. Berler v. Kane, 189 App. Div. 76. Verdict, $1,200. Reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 283 Vehicles—Continued Pedler in street knocked down by wagon. Collender v. Reardon, 138 App. Div. 738. Judgment for defendant, re- versed. Injury from careless driving in street. _ Steel Drake Baking Co. v. Piercy Contracting Co., 140 App. Div. 113. Judg- ment and order Municipal Court, affirmed. Horse hit by iron railing carried by passing vehicle. Curtis Blaisdell Co. v. Ross, 50 Misc. 642. Municipal Court judgment for defendant, reversed. Fall of driver from wagon because of ridge in pavement. Kaucher v. City of N. Y., 144 App. Div. 103. Verdict, $3,000. Reversed. Breaking of tail board of wagon injuring plaintiff employed thereon. Chernick v. Indp. American Ice Cream Co., 72 Misc. 79. Municipal Court order setting aside verdict, reversed. Overturning of wagon killing teamster. Kalbach v. Ross, 145 App. Div. 55. Motion for new trial denied. Hit by box falling from truck turning corner of street. Mead v. Goldman, 145 App. Div. 509. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Thrown under wagon while passing obstruction in highway. Boehm v. Hammond & Sloane (Inc.), 145 App. Div. 511. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Pedestrian run over by truck while crossing street. Wagner v. Clausen & Son Brewing Co., 146 App. Div. 70. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Falling through hole in tail board of wagon which plaintiff was driving. Chernick v. Independent American Ice Cream Co., 147 App. Div. 767. Verdict, $300. Municipal Court judgment, reversed. Passenger injured while alighting from coach. Weill v. City of New York, 148 App. Div. 919. Motion for reargument and resettlement of order denied. 284 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Vehicles—Continued Child run over by wheel of truck owned by defendant. Bernstein v. Empire Bridge Co., 146 App. Div. 529. Verdict, $4,750. Affirmed. Ventilation Death caused by failure to furnish air and remove smoke from caisson. Waller v. Degnon Contracting Co., 120 App. Div. 389. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed. Verdict Excessive verdict for death of child. Barretto v. Moquin, Offerman Wells Coal Co., 142 App. Div. 504. Verdict, $2,500. Reversed unless verdict reduced to $1,500. Vessels Collision between vessels at sea, resulting in drowning. Grube v. Hamburg American Steamship Co., 176 N. Y. 383. Fall through open hatchway poorly lighted. Earle v. Clyde Steamship Co., 43 Misc. 535. Motion for new trial by de- fendant, denied. Drifting scow in collision with dock and boats of plaintiff. Dooley v. Healey, 95 App. Div. 271. Municipal judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Collision between tug boat and pile driver, injuring employee attaching a fender. ° Belt v. DuBois Sons Co., 97 App. Div. 392. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Breaking of rope in hoist way injuring passenger watching process. Ganguzza v. Anchor Line, 97 App. Div. 352. Judgment for defendant, af- firmed. Fall of boom on derrick by rusting and corrosion of cable. Connors v. King Line Limited, 98 App. Div. 261. Verdict, $10,000. Af- firmed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 285 Vessels—Continued Fall through hatchway of vessel, cover being removed and not sufficient light. Earle v. Clyde Steamship Co., 103 App. Div. 21. Verdict, $2,000. Re- versed. Knocked down by bale of paper lowered into hold of vessel. Tydeman v. Prince Line Limited, 102 App. Div. 279. Verdict, $5,000. Reversed. Fall of draft of cargo on employee from winch being improperly operated, causing injury. Johnson v. Prince Line’ Limited, 104 App. Div. 157. Verdict, $2,500. Re- versed. . Plaintiff on wharf injured by parting of steel hawser. Duhme v. Hamburg-American P Co., 107 App. Div. 237. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. ‘Ship carpenter repairing float, crushed to death between float and pier. Alfson v. Bush Co., 182 N. Y. 393. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Breaking of steel hawser used in warping vessel. Duhme v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 184 N. Y. 404. Order reversing judgment for defendant on dismissal of complaint. Falling of hatch beam while covering hatches. Callehan v. Munson Steamship Co., 71 Misc. 525. Motion for new trial, denied. Collision between car floats injuring employee. Carlin v. N. H. & H. R. R. R. Co., 71 Misc. 521. Motion to set aside ver- dict, denied. Collision between tugs injuring scow lashed to tug. Rockland Lake Trap Rock Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 628. Judgment reversed. Fall of iron shutter on vessel causing death of intestate. Rende v. N. Y. & Texas Steamship Co., 187 N. Y. 382. Judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. Reversing, 112 App. Div. 922. 286 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Vessels—Continued Falling into coal chute on ferry boat. Weill v. City of New York, 147 App. Div. 634. Verdict, $2,000. Reversed. Injury to coal boat by digger used in unloading. Kiers v. Rathjen, 60 Misc. 105. Judgment Municipal Court for plaintiff, reversed. Barge negligently loaded causing loss. Schoonmaker v. Steers, Inc., 128 App. Div. 655. Judgment on non-suit for defendant, reversed. Capsizing of unseaworthy vessel hired for use. Blumquist v. Snare & Triest Co., 135 App. Div. 709. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmed. Failure to supply sufficient co-employees. Dair v. N. Y. & Porto Rico 8. 8. Co., 139 App. Div. 751. Verdict, $500. Reversed. Fall of bundle of iron on plaintiff’s leg while being lowered into vessel. Dair v. N. Y. & P. R. Steamship Co., 204 N. Y. 341. Dismissal of com- plaint, affirmed. Reversing, 139 App. Div. 751. Drifting scow causing damage to dock and vessels. Dooley v. Booth e al., 110 App. Div. 894. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Collision between vessel and overhanging crane on dock. Lackawanna Steel Co. v. Pioneer Steamship Co., 148 App. Div. 465. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Visitors Visitor to tenants injured by breaking of hand rail to steps in front of house. Kane v. Williams, 140 App. Div. 857. Verdict, $150. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 287 Waiters Injuring clothing by spilling water on the same at restaurant. Block v. Sherry, 43 Misc. 342. Municipal Count judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Spilling food and drink on guest in dining room causing injury. ' Cassasa v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 109 App. Div. 170. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. i Walls Fall of wall left standing after fire injuring trespasser on premises. Haack v. Brooklyn Labor Lyceum eee 44 Misc. 273. Monon4 to set aside verdict granted. _ Fall of ceiling through leakage in roof causing injury. Frank v. Simon, 109 App. Div. 38. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dis- missing complaint. Fall of ceiling in kitchen causing injury. Walker v. Gleason, 109 App. Div. 791. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Fall of ceiling in school room injuring pupil. Wahrman »v. City of N. Y. & Board of Education, 111 App. Div. 345. Ver- dict, $4,000. Affirmed. Collapse and fall of wall, defectiv> plans. Potter v. Gilbert, 130 App. Div. 632. Appeal from order. Falling walls throwing plaintiff. Silvermann v. Binder, 130 App. Div. 581. Verdi¢t, $3,000. Reversed. Fall of ceiling in room. Morris v. Zimmerman, 138 App. Div. 114. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Warning Railroad employee struck by train while installing switches, failure to give warning. Froehlich v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 120 App. Div. 471. Verdict, $8,000. Affirmed. 288 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Warning—Continued Failure to warn or apprise plaintiff of the existence of certain conditions, air currents, by reason of which plaintiff claims he was forced into machinery. Lucas v. International Paper Co., 181 App. Div. 368. Verdict, $4,000. Reversed. 2 Warehouse Man Failure to deliver goods on demand. Herrman v. New England Navigation Co., 143 App. Div. 551. Appeal from order by defendant. Water, Leakage or Bursting of Pipes Bursting of water main while relaying. Froelich v. N. Y. City, 199 N. Y. 466. Judgment on dismissal of complaint, modified. Modifying 129 App. Div. 909. Bursting of water main causing injury. Levin v. Nassau Electric Co., 188 App. Div. 491. Verdict, $300. Order setting aside verdict, reversed. Damage from dye vats leaking on plaintiff’s goods. Love v. Globe Hat Mfg. Co., 129 App. Div. 621. Municipal Court judg- ment for defendant, reversed. Damage to cellar by break in water pipe. Silverberg v. N. Y. City, 59 Misc. 492. Judgment for plaintiff, Municipal Court, affirmed. Bursting of water main. Kelsey v. City of N. Y, 123 App. Div. 381. Verdict, $1,500. Reversed. Leakage of water pipe causing injury. Fitzgerald v. Goldstein, 56 Misc. 677. Judgment Municipal Court, reversed. Flooding of premises by breaking of lateral pipe of city water main. Dunstan v. City of N. Y., 91 App. Div. 355. Judgment for plaintiff, af- firmed. Leakage of water pipe causing injury to goods. Moppar v. Wiltchik ,56 Misc. 676. Judgment Municipal Court, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 289 Water, Overflow of Damages by flow of surface water over improved street. Jung v. City of N. Y., 182 App. Div. 18. Dismissal of complaint, affirmed. Overflow of water in store causing damage. Rothblatt v. Solomon, 59 Misc. 519. Judgment Municipal Court, affirmed. Damages sustained by flow of water from hydrant. Frank v. City of Rome, 125 App. Div. 141. Appeal from order County Court, affirmed. Overflow of water tank on upper floor from improper replacing of cover. Lewis Co. v. Metropolitan Realty Co., 112 App. Div. 385. Verdict, $1,138.25. Affirmed. Damage to premises by back water collected by defendant for discharge through culvert. Branson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 111 App. Div. 737. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. _Premises injured by flood of creek used as drain sewer. O’Donnell v. City of Syracuse, 102 App. Div. 801. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Flooding of land with salt water causing injuries. Black v. Highland Solar Salt Co., 98 App. Div. 409. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Damages from water and sediment falling from a bridge extend- ing over property. Sadlier v. City of N. Y., 104 App. Div. 82. Judgment for plaintiff, reversed. Dismissal of complaint. Cutting off water supply from premises by negligence of plumber. Rice v. Hogan, 45 Misc. 400. Judgment for defendant, affirmed. Damages from overflow of water caused by diversion of stream by railroad embankment. Dennison v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 98 App. Div. 399. Non-suit, reversed. . 290 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS Water, Overflow of—Continued Overflow from low canal bank from improper management of waste wiers. Crowley v. State of N. Y., 99 App. Div. 52. Judgment for defendant, re- versed. Giving way of reservoir destroying bridges, etc. Town of Southeast v. City of N. Y., 96 App. Div. 598. Judgment for plain- tiff, affirmed. Injury to clothing by water spilled by waiter at restaurant. Block v. Sherry, 43 Misc. 342. Verdict, $100. Affirmed. Flood caused by failure to open gates of aqueduct. Greeley v. State of New York, 94 App. Div. 605. Judgment of Court of Claims for defendant, reversed. Surface water diverted from gutter by repairs on street, injuring goods in cellar. Jewell v. City of Mt. Vernon, 91 App. Div. 578. Verdict, $770.70. Re- versed. Flooding of plaintiff’s premises from opposite bank of stream being raised by municipal authorities. Brown v. City of Ithaca, 148 App. Div. 477. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Overflow and injury caused by damming up of water by accumu- lation of ice under aqueduct. Whitestown v. State of New York, 148 App. Div. 582. Judgment for de- fendant, reversed. Overflow of dam on lowering of spill way. Deerpark Brewing Co! v. Port Jervis Water Works Co., 129 App. Div. 420. Verdict, $1,000. Reversed. Water, Miscellaneous Falling into tank of water in floor of cellar. Ward v. Hill, 125 App. Div. 587. Verdict, $2,500. Affirmed. Overflow of water from faucet causing damage in tenement. Aschenbach ». Keene, 46 Misc. 600. Municipal Court judgment for plain- tiff, reversed. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—FACTS 291 Water, Miscellaneous—Continued Water coming from defendant’s loft flooding loft of plaintiff. Kahn v. Burrette, 42 Misc. 54. Judgment for defendant, reversed. Dis- missal of complaint. Ways Decedent walking along narrow way stumbling over box and hit by train. Darton v. Interborough R. T. Co., 125 App. Div. 836. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Defective way causing fall while wheeling load. Knezevich v. Bush Terminal Co., 127 App. Div. 55. Dismissal of com- plaint, reversed. Fall of wheel barrow loaded from run way furnished by defend- ant. Fagan v. Wells Bros. Co., 63 Misc. 337. Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, affirmed. Unsafe place to work, falling from plank while wheeling dirt in the night time by tilting of plank. Trentacoste v. Cronin, 132 App. Div. 907. Dismissal of complaint, reversed. Window Fall of window while plaintiff was lowering upper part thereof. Burk v. Frenkel, 95 App. Div. 89. Order denying defendant’s motion for full particulars, reversed. Windlass Failure to adjust block and improper interference with it by co- employee causing injury. McQueen v. D. L. & W. R. R., 102 App. Div. 195. Verdict, $700. Reversed. LAW Abatement of Action If new trial granted, action abates if defendant died before ver- dict in new trial. Molloy v. Starin, 184 App. Div. 542. Abutting Owners Rights and liabilities as to obstructing sidewalk. Kurlavehick v. Sklamberg, 56 Misc. 473. Care in use of land as to persons on highway. Crimmins v. United Engineering and Contracting Co., 49 Misc. 622. Liability of owner who had moved from premises during repairs by contractor; for injury from open coal hole. Hart v. McKenna, 106 App. Div. 219. Contractor’s liability to abutting owners for damages. Smyth v. City of N. Y., 203 N. Y. 106. Liable for obstructions on side walk during building construc- tion. Friedman v. City of N. Y., 63 Misc. 310. Must do no affirmative act to make side walk unsafe. Krebs v. Heitmann, 104 App. Div. 173. Liable to pedestrian for injuries sustained by defective walk caused by contractor in employment of owner. Mullins v. Seigel Cooper Co., 95 App. Div. 234. Accident Mere happening of, not proof of negligence. Rende v. N. Y. & Texas Steamship Co., 187 N. Y. 382. As to whether accident to be apprehended is for the jury. Preiss v. City of N. Y., 69 Misc. 492. 293 294 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Accident—Continued Nothing to show it could have been anticipated or discovered or prevented. Bernadac v. Schencke Piano Co., 134 App. Div. 523. Unexplainable accident, explosion. Paul v. Consolidated Fireworks Co., 133 App. Div. 310. Unusual accident, not negligence in failing to anticipate. Ryan v. Cortland Carriage Goods Co., 133 App. Div. 467. Defects not causing accident. Ryan v. Cortland Carriage Goods Co., 133 App. Div. 467. Failure to connect defendant with accident. Middleton v. Reutler, 141 App. Div. 517. Proof of similar accidents proper. Dempsey v. City of New York, 141 App. Div. -567. Result of tests made subsequent to accident. Green v. Long Island R. R., 131 App. Div. 277. New situation arising independent of original negligence and presenting extraordinary conditions. DeBock v. American Bridge Co., 131 App. Div. 480. Evidence of previous similar accidents proper. Friedman v. City of N. Y., 63 Misc. 310. Absence of evidence other than accident not sufficient to show defective scaffold. Tiedjen v. National Elevator Co., 130 App. Div. 504. Cause of fall not shown or proof that others had fallen or any notice to defendant, insufficient. Mulleney v. McDonald, 130 App. Div. 570. Unusual oecurrence resulting in injury does not raise presump- tion of negligence. Eaton v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 195 N. Y. 267. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 295 Accident—Continued Collision, car with truck, action unexplained, inference negli- gence. Vogel v. Bahr, 130 App. Div. 732. When proof of previous accidents at other times improper. Harrison v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 195 N. Y. 86. No presumption arises from mere accident. Henson v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 194 N. Y. 205. What is not unavoidable accident. Stevenson v. Joline, 127 App. Div. 181. Error to admit evidence that after accident repairs were made to machine. Schultz v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 127 App. Div. 305. Unexplained accident, fall of body from sleeping car. Losie v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 142 App. Div. 214. Contributory negligence of plaintiff. Steinberg v. Bender & Sons, 125 App. Div. 564. Where no eye witness, the hearing of sounds and finding injuries not sufficient proof of freedom from contributory negligence. Lester v. Crabtree, 125 App. Div. 617. Accident unusual does not destroy presumption of master per- forming his duty. Schlappendorf v. American Railway Traffic Co., 142 App. Div. 554. Accident unusual does not destroy presumption of master per- forming his duty. Hartman v. Berlin & Jones Envelope Co., 71 Mise. 30. For jury to say whether accident could have been anticipated. Lyon v. Coleman, 123 App. Div. 703. Where plaintiff does nothing to avert accident, complaint should be dismissed. Lyon v. Coleman, 123 App. Div. 703. 296 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Accident—Continued Long delay in making claim may indicate it never happened. Sturgis v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 122 App. Div. 658. Negligence not to be inferred from happening of accident. Robinson v. Empire City Subway Co., 53 Misc. 596. Report of accident as evidence. McArthur v. N. Y. City R. R., 53 Misc. 292. Error to charge in effect that defendant is insurer against acci- dents. Sullivan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 117 App. Div. 784. Plaintiff entitled to recover, if on either version of cause of acci- dent defendant negligent. Clancy v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 569. Where accident unexplained plaintiff must show freedom from contributory negligence. Meaney v. Hurwitz, 115 App. Div. 572. Unusual accident calls on carrier for explanation to escape im- putation of negligence. Paine v. Geneva Waterloo 8. F. & C. L. Traction Co., 115 App. Div. 729. For sudden unexplained loosening of chains to elevator, negligence cannot be imputed to defendant. Muhlmeyer v. Koehler & Co., 51 Misc. 651. Prior accidents by fall of another pole admissible to show notice. Hanselman v. Broad, 118 App. Div. 447. Mere happening of accident not sufficient for recovery. Nigro v. Willson, 50 Mise. 656. Caused wholly by act of fellow servant master not bound to anticipate. Brust v. Perkins Co., 113 App. Div. 633. Presumption of negligence from happening of. Scheller v. Silbermintz, 50 Mise. 175. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 297 Accident—Continued Presumption of negligence from happening of accident. Schwartz v. Monday, 49 Misc. 527. When no proof as to how the accident occurred or of freedom from contributory negligence, complaint properly dismissed. Farrell v. Town of North Elba, 112 App. Div. 144. Error in exclusion of testimony identifying the cause of the accident. Miller v. Levering & Garrignes, 144 App. Div. 12. When accident and risk incident to employment and not to be anticipated. Moran v. Mulligan, 110 App. Div. 208. Conversation subsequent to accident between injured person and co-employee incompetent, as are also proofs of several falls of ele- vator. . Harkins v. Queens Insurance Co., 106 App. Div. 170. Proof of previous accidents at ash bin. Withers v. Brooklyn Real Estate Exchange, 106 App. Div. 255. Presumption of negligence from happening of accident. Kain v. Roebling Construction Co., 72 Misc. 34. Not reasonably anticipated need not be guarded against. Hartman v. Clark, 104 App. Div. 62. Noise and motion of car may be shown to prove notice of acci- dent to employees. Beers v. West Side R. R. Co., 101 App. Div. 308. Mere break in appliance is not evidence of negligence on part of defendant. Schapiro v. Levy, 101 App. Div. 444. Proof of other accidents as evidence of negligence. Crowley v. Rochester Fire Works Co., 95 App. Div. 18. 298 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Accident—Continued Evidence of previous accidents admissible to show notice to defendant of condition. Holzhauser v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 43 Misc. 145. Fact of no accident occurring in long period, question of fact. Bradner v. Village of Warwick, 91 App. Div. 408. Specific cause of an accident need not be shown. Wolpers v. N. Y. & Queens Electric Light Co., 91 App. Div. 424. When explanation of accident presents question for jury. Wolpers v. N. Y. & Queens Electric Light Co., 91 App. Div. 424. Proof of former accident incompetent where physical conditions not shown to be the same. Gustafson v. Young, 91 App. Div. 433. When proof of similar accidents admissible. Perras v. United Traction Co., 88 App. Div. 260. Proof that such accident had never before happened. Fahner v. Brooklyn Heights R. R,, 86 App. Div. 488. Proof of other accidents to establish defendant’s knowledge of danger. Withers v. Brooklyn Real Estate Exchange, 106 App. Div. 255. When proper to show conditions morning after accident. Comstock v. Village of, Schuylerville, 139 App. Div. 378. Error to charge that every happening of accident unexplained defendant is negligent. Frahm v. Seigel Cooper Co., 131 App. Div. 747. Where accident not to be anticipated. Nichols v. City of N. Y., 128 App. Div. 532. No eye witness to accident. Tiedjen v. National Elevator Co., 141 App. Div. 529. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 299 Admissions Admission of party on previous trial may be proven by persons present or other evidence. McRorie v. Monroe, 203 N. Y. 426. Admissions before accident. Kenney v. So. Shore Natural Gas & Fuel Co., 134 App. Div. 859. Admissions of party cannot be used against him. Koester v. Rochester Candy Works, 194 N. Y. 92. Failure to deny allegation that defendant is engaged in con- structing is admitted by failure to deny. Zettel v. Taylor, 128 App. Div. 251. Admissions by driver of vehicle after injury. Burk v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 98 App. Div. 219. Adoption Jury may find master adopted the scaffold construction. Bower v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corporation, 125 App. Div. 684. Age Witness cannot testify as to his own age. Koester v. Rochester Candy Works, 194 N. Y. 92. Agency Error to charge that jury may consider that defendant did not deny authority at time he was served with summons. McEnroe v. Taylor, 56 Misc. 680. Facts not sufficient to show agency of defendants. Moore v. Coler, 114 App. Div. 301. Corporation liable for acts of servant although he is a public officer. Sharp v. Erie R. R., 184 N. Y. 100. Liability of corporation from failure to employ competent agents. Ellsworth v. Franklin Co. Agricultural Society, 99 App. Div. 119. 300 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Allegations in Pleading Allegations of negligent construction of superstructure allows proof of insufficient coping. Town of Southeast v. City of N. Y., 96 App. Div. 598. Alien Parties Action for death from negligence may. be maintained although widow and next of kin are non-resident aliens. Alfson v. Bush Co., 182 N. Me 393. Alter Ego Alter ego of corporation, superintendent receiving orders from president and directing the foreman. Connolly v. Hall & Grant Construction Co., 192 N. Y. 182. When error to charge foreman was alter ego of master, and his negligence that of master. Curran v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 347. Superintendent of mill although alter ego of owner is entitled to benefits of employer’s act. Aken v. Barnet & Aufsesser Knitting Co., 118 App. Div. 463. When it is established that the manager is alter ego of defendant. Tivnan v. Keahon, 117 App. Div. 50. Employment as flagman on train does not make employee alter ego of master. McAuley v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 111 App. Div. 117. e When foreman is alter ego of master. Hemstock v. Lackawanna Iron & Steel Co., 98 App. Div. 332. When starter of car is alter ego of master and not fellow servant. Quinn v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 91 App. Div. 489. The servant performing his duty is the alter ego of the master for whose negligence master is liable. Koehler v. N. Y. Steam Co., 183 N. Y. 1. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 301 Amendment Where complaint alleges injury in machinery error to amend alleging violation of labor law. Mandy »v. Schleicher Co., 142 App. Div. 23. Changing names of parties from trustee to individual. Boyd v. U. 8. Mortgage & Trust Co., 187 N. Y. 262. Where variance between pleading and proof, and no objection made, variance is immaterial and pleadings should be amended. Carlin v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 71 Mise. 521. Power of court to allow amendments to pleadings. Bovee v. International Paper Co., 108 App. Div. 94. Amendment of complaint; when juror should be withdrawn. McDonald v. Holbrook Cabot & Daly Co., 105 App. Div: 90. Amendment of complaint on trial as to cause of injury; when surprise and requiring new trial. Oats v. N. Y. Dock Co., 99 App. Div. 487. When amendment of complaint should be allowed on trial. Williams v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 97 App. Div. 133. Amendments by plaintiff on trial as to details of negligence; charge. Strauss v. Buchman, 96 App. Div. 270. Amendment of summons by omitting after name the words, “As trustee”’ etc. Boyd v. U. 8. Mortgage & Trust Co., 94 App. Div. 413. Amendment of complaint as to date to conform to evidence and to notice of municipal corporation. Ladrick v. Village of Green Island, 103 App. Div. 71. Animals Action based on owner’s negligence, not necessary to show knowl- edge. Farber v. Roginsky, 123 App. Div. 38. 302 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Animals—Continued Carrier need exercise only reasonable precaution for safety of persons rightfully passing cage. Molloy v. Starin, 191 N. Y. 21. One going within reach of chained bear cannot recover where he knew the bear was dangerous. . Ernin v. Woodruff, 119 App. Div. -603. When carrier not required to send attendant with animal. Ames v. Fargo, 114 App. Div. 666. A person knowing the viciousness of, who voluntarily puts himself in place of danger cannot recover. Molloy v. Starin, 1138 App. Div. 852. Death of animal must be connected with collision resulting in accident. Nocera v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 113 App. Div. 419. Liability of owner for vicious animal rests in knowledge of its vicious character. Soronem v. Von Postau, 112 App. Div. 487. Negligence in management of, rather than vicious character of, may be basis of an action. West v. Woodruff, 112 App. Div. 133. There is no legal difference between actual knowledge and cir- cumstances suggesting existence of dangerous traits. Conway v. Rheims, 107 App. Div. 289. Answer When answer not frivolous. Curran v. Arp, 141 App. Div. 659. Under general denial defendant may prove that damages were caused by others for whose acts he is not responsible. Kiers v. Rathjen, 60 Misc. 105. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 303 Answer—Continued Defendant by failure to deny that it operated a stage coach does not admit it operated the particular coach. Sturgis v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 122 App. Div. 658. When denial in answer is a negative pregnant. Shepard v. Wood, 116 App. Div. 861. Admission of ownership of premises and denial of other allega- tions. Keating v. Mott, 92 App. Div. 156. Anticipation Employer not bound to anticipate every possible contingency. Packtor v. City of N. Y., 182 App. Div. 373. Accident not to be readily apprehended. DeBock v. American Bridge Co., 131 App. Div. 480. Contractor not bound to anticipate employee using wrong exit. Burke v. Cowen & Co., 130 App. Div. 207. Employment of competent servants by master not bound to anticipate negligent acts or dangerous situations. O’ Keefe v. Degnon Realty & Terminal Improvement Co., 141 App. Div. 701. Where act and danger not to be anticipated. Nicholls v. City of N. Y., 128 App. Div. 532. Where accident was not anticipated it is not to be anticipated. Martin v. Walker & William Mfg. Co., 128 App. Div. 733. Where motorman does not anticipate that passenger would alight at that point. Wilson v. Rochester & Eastern Rapid R. R. Co., 123 App. Div. 90. Rule where condition of accident could not have been anticipated. Olcott v. Passaic Steel Co., 122 App. Div. 90. It is not to be anticipated that servant would unnecessarily approach knives of machine. McGrath v. Fibre Conduit Co., 122 App. Div. 424. 304 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Anticipation—Continued Master not bound to anticipate that a wire may break and injure employee. DamJanovic v. Herring Hall Marvin Safe Co., 119 App. Div. 12. When master may not anticipate accident from defective derrick. Thompson v. Post & McCord, 143 App. Div. 394. ° Master not liable where accident could not have been anticipated. McCann v. Interurban St. R. R., 117 App. Div. 188. Plaintiff cannot recover where no reason to anticipate danger and sufficient inspection. Andriuszis v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 143 App. Div. 607. Where a movement cannot be anticipated it is not negligence to fail to give warning of danger. Titus v. Tangeman, 116 App. Div. 487. Master need not anticipate accident from lack of knowledge of English language. Date v. N. Y. Glucose Co., 114 App. Div. 789. Defendant cannot anticipate accident from sudden unexplained loosening of elevator chains. Muhlmeyer v. Koehler & Co., 51 Misc. 651. Defendants not bound to anticipate accident. Bell v. City of N. Y., 114 App. Div. 22. Appeals ° ‘Presumption from conflicting evidence. Ozogar v. Pierce Butler & Pierce Mnfg. Co., 134 App. Div. 800. Court of Appeals, duty of. Hickock v, Auburn L. H. & Power Co., 200 N. Y. 464. On appeal from dismissal of complaint, plaintiff’s evidence as- sumed as true and he is entitled to the most favorable inferences. Paul v. Consolidated Fireworks Co., 141 App. Div. 776. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 305 Appeals—Continued Appellate Division has power to entertain appeal from order denying motion for new trial. Callahan v. Munson Steamship Line, 141 App. Div. 791. On appeal solely from judgment, the Appellate Division can only review the exceptions. Thornton v. Interurban St. R. R. 128 App. Div. 872. When former decision on appeal is not applicable on a new trial. Reilly v. Troy Brick Co., 125 App. Div. 326. Reversal as to one does not reverse as to all where acts of negli- gence separate. Draper v. Interborough R. T. Co., 124 App. Div. 351. On appeal from judgment dismissing complaint, plaintiff entitled to have testimony believed and to all favorable inferences. Draper v. Interborough R. T. Co., 124 App. Div. 351. Appeal from judgment brings up question of law alone. Bernreither v. City of N. Y., 123 App. Div. 291. The defense of the exercise of a governmental function by city need not be pleaded to be used on appeal. Wilcox v. City of Rochester, 190 N. Y. 137. Court of Appeals having decided plaintiff has established causc of action, the same facts proven on new trial, Appellate Division bound by the decision unless a defense as a matter of law estab- lished. McCoy v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 119 App. Div. 531. When decision of former appeal not controlling on question of negligence. Fish v. Utica Steam & Mohawk Valley Cotton Mills, 109 App. Div. 326. Where appeal record contains no certificate that it contains all the evidence. German »v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 107 App. Div. 354. Review limited to exceptions. Taquinton v. Bauer, 104 App. Div. 56. 306 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES— LAW Appeals—Continued Presumption on appeal from a judgment of non suit. McConnell v. Morse Iron Works, 102 App. Div. 324. When affirmance is assumed not to have been unanimous. Perez v. Sandrowitz, 180 N. Y. 397. Objection to whole theory of charge is not maintainable without exception. Wright v. Fleischman, 99 App. Div. 547. Judgment may be reversed on an exception not discussed orally or in appellant’s brief. Purcell v. Hoffman House, 97 App. Div. 307. When complaint and theory of trial is for negligence, action will not on appeal be considered as trespass. Duerr v. Consolidated Gas Co., 86 App. Div. 14. Failing to take exceptions defendant cannot raise question as to decision on the undisputed facts. Dearing v. Independent Union Telephone Co., 145 App. Div. 152. When certificate as to case is not necessary to review exceptions at trial. Dupont v. Village of Port Chester, 204 N. Y. 351. Appellate Division While it may review facts and may set aside verdicts, disputed questions of evidence must be ultimately settled by jury. * Larsen v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 146 App. Div. 238. Where the case has been fairly tried, verdict should not be set aside because the opinion of the Appellate Division does not accord with the jury and trial court. Larsen v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 146 App. Div. 238. May, although no exception taken, review on appeal from judg- ment the ruling of trial judge submitting certain questions to jury. Caciatore v. Transit Construction Co., 147 App. Div. 676. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 307 Appellate Division—Continued Appellate Division will only reverse because of submission of cause on erroneous theory, where the erroneous theory clearly appears. Lackawanna Steel Co. v. Pioneer Steamship Co., 148 App. Div. 465. Where judgment of unanimous affirmance by the Appellate Division has been reversed by the Court of Appeals on a single ground, the Appellate Division on appeal from second judgment is estopped by the former affirmance and by the Court of Appeals opinion from considering other questions. The Court’s duty is to affirm the judgment rendered. Weld v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 148 App. Div. 588. Decision not unanimous. Hickock v. Auburn Light, Heat & Power Co., 200 N. Y. 464. Where Court of Appeals has decided plaintiff has established a cause of action, the same facts proven on new trial, Appellate Divi- sion bound by the decision unless a defense as a matter of law is established. McCoy v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 119 App. Div. 531. Apprehension There must be reasonable apprehension that a way is dangerous in order to make city liable. Stratton v. City of N. Y., 190 N. Y. 204. (Mem.). Appliances Kind to be provided. Fahey v. New Amsterdam Gas Co., 134 App. Div. 611. What appliances master bound to furnish. Scott v. Nauss Bros. Co., 141 App. Div. 255. Liability of manufacturer for negligent construction of. Statler v. Ray Mnfg. Co., 195 N. Y. 478. Appliances inherently dangerous in character, liability of manu- facturer for. Statler v. Ray Mnfg. Co., 195 N. Y. 478. £% _ 308 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Appliances—Continued Master only bound to furnish reasonably safe, suitable appliances not best possible one, or in perfect condition. Burke v. International Paper Co., 128 App. Div. 680. Master to supply safe and proper contrivance, placed and oper- ated to protect servant. ‘ Schmidt v. Rohn, 127 App. Div. 220. Presumption that master has exercised due care in providing safe appliances. Henson v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 122 App. Div. 160. Drug compounder not required to furnish best known appliances. Gozzett v. Plaut, 121 App. Div. 513. Architect Failing to inspect work chargeable only with non-feasance. Potter v. Gilbert, 130 App. Div. 632. Architect not liable to third person to whom he owes no active vigilance. Potter v. Gilbert, 1830 App. Div. 632. Owner of building not liable for death of employee of architect accidentally falling. Kenney v. Brooklyn Bridge Stores Co., 121 App. Div. 684. Attorney Attorney sued for negligence, what proof plaintiff may give. Lamprecht v. Bien, 125 App. Div. 811. Misconduct of attorney in examining witnesses, addressing jury, directing trial and abusing opposite counsel. Philpot v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 142 App. Div. 811. Repeated reference to defendant’s engineers and firemen as murderers is ground for reversal. Orendorf v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 119 App. Div. 638. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW . 309 : Attorney—Continued Improper statement by as to wealth of defendant. Keevan v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 118 App. Div. 56. Objection to opening of counsel. Mulligan v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 89 App. Div. 207. Improper statement of counsel to jury. Strickland v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 88 App. Div, 367. : ah Car t Appellate Court cannot reverse for over zealousness of counsel. on cross-examination. Kruse v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 146 App. Div. 485. Auctioneer Negligence of auctioneer in handling animals resulting in injury, question for jury. Karchar v. Fiss, Doer & Carroll Horse Co., 127 App. Div. 203. Authority , Authority may be inferred. Stokes v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 134 App. Div. 363. . Error to charge that jury may consider the fact that defendant did not deny authority at time he was served with summons. McEnroe v. Taylor, 56 Misc. 680. Automobile Duty to give signal of warning. Bradley v. Jaeckel, 65 Misc. 509. Collision with person alighting from car. Vilickiv. N. Y. Transportation Co., 65 Misc. 43. Approaching crossing without warning. Gross v. Foster, 134 App. Div. 248. Fellow servant of chauffeur. Erjauschek v. Kramer, 141 App. Div. 545. 310 A DIGEST: OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Automobile—Continued Passing street car when letting off passengers. Brewster v. Barker, 129 App. Div. 724. Where no proof chauffeur was inattentive, driving improperly or changing course or speed improperly, judgment reversed. Seaman v. Mott, 127 App. Div. 18. R Woman riding with husband, driving machine, and she did not look or observe approaching danger, she is guilty of contributory negligence. Pouch v. Staten Island Midland R. R., 142 App. Div. 16. Have no right of way over other vehicles. Lorenz v. Tisdale, 127 App. Div. 483. Should be under control. Lorenz v. Tisdale, 127 App. Div. 433. Owner not responsible in law for injuries caused by chaffeur not in master’s business. Cunningham v. Castle, 127 App. Div. 580. Not per se dangerous to make master liable for negligence of chauffer to whom car was loaned. Cunningham »v. Castle, 127 App. Div. 580. Error to leave out of charge the mutuality of the obligations of plaintiff and motorman. Purcell v. Union R. R. Co., 58 Misc. 240. No recovery against owner corporation where at time of accident it was not used in corporate business. Power v. Arnold Engineering Co., 142 App. Div. 401. Liability of owner for act of one driving in his absence, is whether relation of master and servant exist. Maher v. Benedict, 123 App. Div. 579. Owner of car not liable for injuries caused by car when chauffeur was not engaged in the owner’s business. Friebaum v. Brady, 143 App. Div. 220. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES——-LAW 311 Automobile—Continued Passenger in automobile not managing car is not chargeable with negligence of the driver. Ward v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 119 App. Div. 487. Care required of driver in passing horse and wagon. Davis v. Maxwell, 108 App. Div. 128. When injury caused by employees of owner but not in the course of his service. Clark v. Buck Mobile Co., 107 App. Div. 120. Proof of ownership of automobile and that chauffeur was in owner’s employ. Stewart v. Baruch, 103 App. Div. 577. Proof that chauffeur disobeyed master in using automobile. Stewart v. Baruch, 103 App. Div. 577. Care to be exercised by driver of vehicle and duty of driver of automobile in highway. Murphy »v. Wait, 102 App. Div. 121. Right of pedestrian to assume that care will be exercised by driver in turning corner. Buscher v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 106 App. Div. 493. Prima facie proof of ownership. McCann »v. Davison, 145 App. Div. 522. When master guilty of contributory negligence, for failure to look. Read v. N. Y. C.. & H. R. R. R., 123 App. Div. 228. Error to charge that if defendant consented to chauffeur using car, he is liable for the negligence. Douglass v. Hewson, 142 App. Div. 166. Registering is not to afford greater protection to the public. Hyde v. McCreery, 145 App. Div. 729. 312 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Automobile—Continued Relating to rights and duties of pedestrians and: persons operat- ing automobiles. Baker v. Close, 204 N. Y. 92. At street crossing both pedestrian and drivers are required to exercise such care as the conditions demand. Baker v. Close, 204 N. Y. 92. Pedestrian at street crossing not required to look both ways and listen; he may assume that the driver will exercise due care and approach crossing with car under control. Baker v. Close, 204 N. Y. 92. The law of the road is not such an absolute rule that the plaintiff must presume that the defendant would pass to the left of road should the right afford better passage. Kalb v. Redwood, 147 App. Div. 77. The vehicle driver is not bound to go to the extreme right hand of the highway to allow the automobile to pass. Tooker v. Fowler & Sellars Co., 147 App. Div. 164. Baggage Left in car on assurance of conductor, and failure to return is prima facie negligence. Croll v. Pullman Co., 61 Misc. 265. Bailment Liability of bailee of goods destroyed by fire is based on negligence. Cramer v. Klein, 127 App. Div. 146. Where chauffeur is employee of bailor, bailee not liable for his negligence when not in bailee’s employ. Bohan v. Metropolitan Express Co., 122 App. Div. 590. When negligence established by injury to horse while in exclu- sive possession of bailee. Powers v. Judghardt, 101 App. Div. 53. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 313 Bank Deposits What is reasonable care in protecting depositors in payment of deposits on drafts. Kenney v. Harlem Savings Bank, 61 Misc. 144. Where careless protection of pass book relieves bank on payment of forged drafts. Kenney v. Harlem Savings Bank, 61 Misc. 144. Complaint cannot be dismissed for failure to produce bank book. Kenney v. Harlem Savings Bank, 61 Misc. 144. Bank Presidents Verifications of reports by. Aldrich v. Laul, 126 App. Div. 427. The relation of bank officers. Davenport v. Prentice, 126 App. Div. 451. Bicycles Collision caused by negligent act of bicyclist; proximate cause. Andrews v. City of Elmira, 128 App. Div. 699. Bill of Particulars Bill of particulars not to set forth evidence. Clum v. Federal Sugar Refining Co., 136 App. Div. 355. Bill of particulars. Hollender v. Hudson e al, 140 App. Div. 899. Bill of particulars in case of personal representatives. Emmi v. Ryan-Parker Construction Co., 184 App. Div. 482. Not ordered for superfluous allegations in pleading. Nickel ». Ayer, 141 App. Div. 576. Will be required where allegations of complaint were mere con- clusions of fact. Horeau ». Schwartzkopf, 142 App. Div. 69. 314 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Bill of Particulars—Continued Alleging lack of knowledge is not an answer to demand for bill of particulars. Ditollo v. Erie R. R. Co., 126 App. Div. 811. Should state whether plaintiff was operating machine, what he was directed to do, also how machinery was defective. Kaplan v. Sher, 56 Misc. 432. Plaintiff required to give bill showing where intestate had worked and in what manner defendant negligent. Waller v. Degnon Construction Co., 120 App. Div. 389. Reasons for granting and purpose of bill of particulars. Dwyer v. Slattery, 118 App. Div. 345. When ordered in action for damages for blasting. Dwyer »v. Slattery, 118 App. Div. 345. When defendant’s denial is a negative pregnant motion for par- ticulars will be denied. Shepard v. Wood, 116 App. Div. 861. A motion for minute and unnecessary particulars should be denied. Shepard v. Wood, 116 App. Div. 861. Ordered to show improper machinery and defects. Higgins v. Erie R. R., 140 App. Div. 222. Blanks Liability of maker or indorser of note drawn with blank spaces only partly filled out. ‘National Exchange Bank of Albany v. Lester, 119 App. Div. 786. Blasting Use of electricity in blasting. Baccelli v. North River Stone Co., 183 App. Div. 449. Breaking of panel in door and injury by. McCormick v. Interborough R. T. Co., 182 App. Div. 703. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 315 Blasting—Continued Master performed duty by furnishing competent foreman, cart- ridges and fuses. Mahoney v. Cayuga Lake Cement Co., 126 App. Div. 164. When method not the proximate cause of injury, plaintiff cannot recover. Andriuszis v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 143 App. Div. 607.. Board of Education Liable for injury caused by falling ceiling in school room. Wahrman v. Board of Education, 187 N. Y. 331. Book Account Embezzlement founded on negligence in checking accounts. Smith v. London Assurance Corporation, 109 App. Div. 882. Boundaries Reference in deed to map whose lines do not conform to street lines as actually laid out. Donahue v. Keystone Gas Co., 90 App. Div. 386. Bribery Attempt to bribe is competent as an admission that parties’ case is weak and evidence dishonest. Brown v. Manhattan R. R., 105 App. Div. 395. Bridges’ Duty of State to keep bridge over canal in safe condition. People v. Syracuse R. T. Co., 129 App. Div. 800. Proper to receive evidence of similar bridges in other localities. Thompson v. Town of Bath, 142 App. Div. 331. Village not liable for defective bridge if before incorporation it was under control of town. Taylor v. Village of Matteawan, 122 App. Div. 406. 316 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Brakeman Not a vice principal of railroad company: Hallock v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R., 197 N. Y. 450. Passing between bumpers. Lane v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R., 141 App. Div. 145. Justified in relying on telltales on railroad to warn of approaching ‘bridge. Harrison v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 127 App. Div. 804. Certain risks which brakemen must guard themselves against. Clark v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 115 App. Div. 813. Brokers ; Action against brokers for failure to enforce bonds owned by plaintiff. Moore »v. Coler, 114 App. Div. 301. Buildings When owner liable for acts of persons employed by janitor. Ellefson v. Singer, 132 App. Div. 89. Use of buildings and property by licensees. Schollhamer v. Hamburger, 63 Misc. 309. Use of wrong exits, contractor not liable. Burke v. Cowen & Co., 180 App. Div. 207. Where owner expresly or by invitation invites a person to come on premises he is liable for resulting injury from defect. Stern v. Miller, 60 Misc. 103. Negligence in failing to plank over floor beams. Schramme v. Lewinson, 126 App. Div. 279. Employees of subcontractor do not enter as licensees but by in- vitation. Dougherty v. Weeks & Son, 126 App. Div. 786. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 317 Buildings—Continued When use of ladders erected by contractor must be deemed in- vitation to employees of sub-contractor to use. Dougherty v. Week & Son, 126 App. Div. 786. ‘When iron is part of building construction. O’Rourke v. Guy B. Waite Co., 125 App. Div. 825. Collapse of building; negligence cannot be predicated where none of the acts contributed to the collapse. Glasgow v. Jordan, 124 App. Div. 488. Error to allow proof of condition of parts other than that which fell. Kupfersmith v. Hopper & Son, 122 App. Div. 31. Fall of building from alleged negligence of contractor erecting an adjoining building. Milbauer v. Richard, 188 N. Y. 453. Where one jumps from burning building, no fire escape as pro- vided by law, question of negligence for jury. Sembler v. Cowperthwait, 53 Misc. 288. Injury to buildings from construction on adjoining premises, items of damages. McFadden v. Thompson Starrett Co., 116 App. Div. 285. Municipal permit to leave building materials in street. Mulvey »v. City of N. Y., 114 App. ‘Div. 526. Employee selecting ladder instead of stairway assumes risk of so doing. Davitt v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 106 App. Div. 507 or 567. Liability of owner for safety of building erected by incompetent contractor. O'Donnell v. Welz & Zerweck, 97 App. Div. 286. Liability of owner for safety of building erected by incompetent contractor differs in case of being finished or unfinished. O’Donnell v. Welz & Zerweck, 97 App. Div. 286. 318 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Burden of Procf Carriers; in case of damage by fire. Burke v. Erie R. R., 184 App. Div. 413. The burden on plaintiff to point out the particular act consti- tuting negligence. . Weitzmann v. Barber Asphalt Co., 129 App. Div. 448. Where charge reverses the burden from plaintiff to defendant, it is reversible error. Continental Ins. Co. v. N. Y. Gas, etc., Co., 193 N. Y. 186. On failure to sustain burden of proof of non sui juris, dismissal of complaint proper. Corsale v. Facini et al., 60 Misc. 100. Burden on defendant to show reason for deterioration of cold storage fruit. Ballston Refrigerator Co. v. Eastern States R. Co., 142 App. Div. 135. Burden is on plaintiff to show the particular negligence causing cars to run away, Lane v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 125 App. Div. 808. Attorney sued for negligence, plaintiff bound to show actual damage. Lamprecht v. Bien, 125 App. Div. 811. Burden is on plaintiff to show employment; he cannot recover on weakness of defendant’s testimony. Davis v. Martin, 111 App. Div. 411. Plaintiff must show tHat defendant could by exercise of care, have known or should have known of defects. Bannon v. Buffalo Union Furnace Co., 109 App. Div. 324. Testimony of a sole witness, if believed, establishes plaintiff’s case. Johnson v. Duncan, 98 App. Div. 322. Where rule of res ipsa loquitur applies, burden on defendant to rebut presumption of negligence. Moglia v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 243. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 319 Care Reasonable care. Fahey v. New Amsterdam Gas Co., 184 App. Div. 611. Reasonable care, for jury. Riggs v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 1384 App. Div. 672. Burden of showing care. Parsons v. Syracuse, Binghamton & N. Y. R. R., 133 App. Div. 461. Railroad’s duty to station person at crossing for pedestrians. Batchelor v. Degnon Realty & Terminal Imp. Co., 131 App. Div. 136. Not duty of defendants to make examination before putting plaintiff to work. Ferrick v. Eidlitze, 195 N. Y. 248. No direct evidence, question whether surrounding circumstances inferred care. Ferrick v. Hidlitze, 195 N. Y. 248. Reasonable care is what an ordinary man would use, determined by what such man looking at the situation in advance of accident, would say was the proper thing to do. Watson v. N. Y. Contracting Imp. Co., 127 App. Div. 134. It is error in charge to leave out the mutuality of the respective obligations of plaintiff and motorman. Purcell v. Union R. R. Co., 58 Misc. 240. Where electric light company controls lines in store, it is liable for reasonable care, and for injury from falling lamp. Fish v. Waverly E. L. & Power Co., 189 N. Y. 336. Master not an insurer, only liable for exercise of reasonable care. Rende v. N. Y. & Texas Steamship Co., 187 N. Y. 382. Evidence of inability to exercise any care is evidence of freedom from contributory negligence. Rockland Lake Trap Rock Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 628. 320 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Care—Continued Rule of highest degree of care is founded on the degree of imminent danger. Walsh v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 141 App. Div. 797. Not error to charge plaintiff cannot recover unless acting as a reasonably prudent person would act under the circumstances. Fischel v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 113 App. Div. 116. Greater care of plaintiff required when he knows of impending danger. Johnson v. Yonkers Railroad Co., 101 App. Div. 65. Pre-occupation and forgetfulness inconsistent with reasonable care. . Buckley v. Westchester Lighting Co., 93 App. Div. 436. In absence of explanation as to failure to use appliances, jury not justified in finding defendant used care. O’Leary v. Glens Falls Gas & Electric Light Co., 107 App. Div. 505. What involved in reasonable care. Newton v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 96 App. Div. 81. One rule of ordinary care measured by the particular circum- stances. Whittacker v. Brooklyn, Queens Co. & Suburban R. R., 110 App. Div. 767. Carriers Special contract and accepting baggage. Morgan v. Woolverton#136 App. Div. 351. Identity of goods lost by fire. Burke v. Erie R. R., 184 App. Div. 413. Ordinary care to be used. Olopp v. Interborough R. T. Co., 69 Misc.. 595. Limitations of liability construed. Hasbrouck v. N. Y. C. & H.R. R. R. Co., 64 Mise. 478, A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 321 . Carriers—Continued Duty to provide safe place to alight or give warning of danger. Catterson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 182 App. Div. 399. Contributory negligence of passenger on leaving ferry boat. Grabler v. N. Y. & East R. Ferry Co., 64 Misc. 58. Reasonable care must be used in accordance with purposes for which premises are used. Paulding v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 132 App. Div. 68. Error to charge that carrier was bound to exercise the utmost care to secure safety in case of electric car. Gregory v. Elmira W. L. & R. R. Co., 190 N. Y. 363, reversing 107 App. Div. 630. When action against for failure to transport products based on negligence, not on breach of contract. Richardson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 122 App. Div. 120. Not to be anticipated that persons out: of: curiosity would ap- proach animals in freight house. Molloy v. Starin, 191 N. Y. 21. Shipper is bound to state nature of goods if dangerous and not to be discovered by inspection. Hanna »v. Pitt & Scott (Limited), 121 App. Div. 420. Error to charge that carrier was bound to carry passenger safely. O’Neil v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 121 App. Div. 487. Question as to warning given by guard. Coogan v. Interborough R. T. Co., 52 Misc. 647. Liability when passenger given no opportunity to reach place of safety. Morrow v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 119 App. Div. 22. When not liable for injury to animal tied as directed by owner. Ames v. Fargo, 114 App. Div. 666. Injury to child by animal in custody of carrier. Molloy v. Starin, 113 App. Div. 852. 322 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Carriers—Continued Liability of railroad for money carried by passengers. Knieriem v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 146 App. Div. 661. Liable for negligence when consignee fails to remove goods. Becker v. Pa. R. R., 109 App. Div. 230. Evidence insufficient to establish negligence in storing goods. Becker v. Pa. R. R., 109 App. Div. 230. Distinction between its liability in case of removal of news boy by employee, and in case of removal of a passenger. Barry v. Union R. R., 105 App. Div. 520. When sufficient evidence of carrier’s negligence to raise a question of fact as to performance of his duty. Arthur v. Pullman, 44 Misc. 229. Destroying of freight by fire in freight house does not establish negligence of carrier. VanAkin v. Erie R. R., 92 App. Div. 23. Exemption in bill of lading from liability in loss by fire. VanAkin v. Erie R. R., 92 App. Div. 23. Through bill of lading inures to the benefit of all carriers. Bradley v. Lake Shore & Michigan So. R. R., 145 App. Div. 312. The words, ‘‘owner’s risk ’’ on receipt do not relieve from negli- gence. Rieser v. Metropolitan Express Co., 45 Misc. 632. Failure to give passenger opportunity to alight is negligence. Bente v. MetropolitanSt. R. R., 90 App. Div. 213. In absence of special contract a carrier selling coupon tickets over its own and connecting lines assumes responsibility only over its own lines. If it furnish a car for such transportation it is liable for failure to furnish safe car. Brook v. Brooklyn Union Elevated R. RB. Co., 148 App. Div. 668. Liability of railroad for money carried by passengers. Knieriem v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 146 App. Div. 661. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 323 Causes of Action Ex contractu and ex delicto. Silverblatt v. Brooklyn Telegraph & Messenger Co., 73 Misc. 38. Charge Correctness of charge determined by substance and not by over- fine distinctions. Sperry v. Union R. R. Co.,.-129 App. Div. 594. Charge not based on abstract propositions. Sperry v. Union R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 594. Court not bound to charge abstract propositions not involved in case or submitted to jury. Weitzmann v. Barber Asphalt Co., 129 App. Div. 448. Charge to jury is to inform the jury what concrete acts or omis- sions may be found to be negligence, mere legal essay not sufficient. Clancy v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 141. Where charge takes negligence and contributory negligence from jury, error. Woods v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 128 App. Div. 235. When charge taking question of negligence from jury is not cured by subsequent charge. Woods v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R: R., 128 App. Div. 235. Where court has pointed out the conflicting theories and the evi- dence in support.of them, not error to limit jury to determine credi- bility of plaintiff’s witness. Newman v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 12. Refusal to charge except as already charged is instruction that rule required is not wholly sound. Pettersen v. Rahtjen’s American Composition Co., 127 App. Div. 32. Not error to refuse to recharge details of matters fully charged. Hanley v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 355. Where no exception the correctness of charge is conceded. Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co., 125 App. Div. 69. 324 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Charge—Continued Where party excepts as to charge and court again reiterates the rule, no exception needed to second ruling. Dubnow v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 122 App. Div. 728. Charge should give jury an idea of what it is necessary to prove to justify recovery. : Philpot v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 142 App. Div. 811. Form of charge in case of failure to guard machinery. Sullivan v. Schweinler, 142 App. Div. 940. Error to charge that carrier was bound to carry passenger in safety.. O’Neil v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 121 App. Div. 487. Error to refuse request to charge when jury was not bound by the views of the court as to the amount of verdict and it was within their discretion. Douglas v. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 119 App. Div. 203. , Restricting verdict to the negligence of a particular employee it must be confined to that. Egg v. Rochester R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 804. Not error to charge that plaintiff cannot recover unless acting as a reasonably prudent person would act under the circumstances. Fischel v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 113 App. Div. 116. Error in charge to jury by mis-statement of testimony. Murphy v..Metropolitan St. R. R., 110 App. Div. 717. Error to charge on an issue not raised by the pleadings. Reeves v. 14th St. Store, 110 App. Div. 735. Proper practice in making requests to charge. Fallon v. Mertz, 110 App. Div. 755. What charge does not cure refusal to so charge. Rutz v. N. Y. City R. R., 107 App. Div. 568. When erroneous admission of evidence without explanation does not justify erroneous charge. Lennox v. Interurban St. R. R.; 104 App. Div. 110. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 325 Charge—Continued i What is not a refusal to a charge. Buckley v. Westchester Lighting Co., 93 App. Div. 436. When reiteration of charge is unnecessary. . Buckley v. Westchester Lighting Co., 93 App. Div. 436. Illustration of charge to jury, right in theory but not applicable. Carr v. Merchant’s United Ice Co., 91 Ape. Div. 162. When subsequent modification of charge does not correct’error. Kelly v. United Traction Co., 88 App. Div. 234. When exception to charge unaccompanied by request for jury’ to disregard certain evidence, will not justify a-reversal:' Lafferty v. 8rd Ave. R. R., 85 App. Div. 592, . > ' ai An exception to a general charge as to ae rules, should point out the defect in the charge. Chinn v. Ferro Construction Co., 148 App. Div. 368. Charity The recipient of charity assumes risk of donor’s servant. Wallace v. Casey Co., 182 App. Div. 35. : Charitable corporation not exempt from liability for negligence. ‘ Kellogg v. Church Charity Foundation, etc., 203°'N: Y. 191. Charitable Institutions Employment of child in charitable institution. ‘Kircher v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 184 App. Div. 144. Children Contributory negligence of children. Smith v. Rochester R. R. Co., 133 App. Div. 847. Care to be exercised by children. Smith v. Rochester R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 847. 326 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Children—Continued Non sui juris, degree of care of children. Smith v. Rochester R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 847. Employment of, contrary to labor law. Kircher v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 134 App. Div. 144. Negligence imputed to children. Manion v. Richmond Ice Co., 183 App. Div. 254. Negligence of parents imputable to child. Manion v. Richmond Ice Co., 133 App. Div. 254. Judgment in crossing street. Quinlan v. Richmond Light & R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 402. Children injured by falling lumber. Middleton v. Reutler, 141 App. Div. 517. Parent’s negligence imputable to child. Wallace v. Casey Co., 132 App. Div. 35. When child within the rule of contributory negligence. Wallace v. Casey Co., 182 App. Div. 35. Contributory negligence of infants; modern rule stated. Batchelor v. Degnon Realty & Terminal Imp. Co., 131 App. Div. 136. Children must show such care exercised according to age and capacity. Ardolino v. Reinhardt, 130 App. Div. 119. Jury to determine question of sui juris. Grealish v. Brooklyn & Queens Co. Suburban R. R. Co., 130 App. Div. 238. Under labor law test of liability is negligence in employing the child. Koester v. Rochester Candy Works, 194 N. Y. 92. Whether child playing with fire or parents permitting child are guilty of negligence, is question for jury. Specht v. Waterbury Co., 70 Misc. 404. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 327 Children—Continued Where plaintiff alleges injury in machinery, error to amend at trial alleging violation of labor law by employment of child under 16. Mandy v. Schleicher Co., 142 App. Div. 23. Whether child sui juris or non sui juris, determined by circum- stances. Corsale v. Facini et al, 60 Misc. 100. Child 314 years old is not guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law. Barretto v. Moquin Offerman & Wells Coal Co., 142 App. Div. 504. Child 7 years of age has burden of proof to show he was non sui juris. Simkoff v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 190 N. Y. 256. Employment of child in factory without certificate is not presump- tion of negligence unless failure to have certificate was proximate cause of injury. Schmidt v. Bruen, 56 Misc. 130. Child under 16 set to work on dangerous machine, is a presump- tion of negligence and such presumption may be rebutted. Schmidt v. Bruen, 56 Misc. 130. Child must exercise such care as is commensurate with its age. Kastenbaum v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 120 App. Div. 160. Jury may consider fact that minor was employed without cer- tificate required by labor law, on question of negligence. Kenyon v. Sanford Mfg. Co., 119 App. Div. 570. A child directed to remove shavings from rapidly revolving ma- chine, without instructions, master liable for injury. Smith v. Wessel Mfg. Co., 117 App. Div. 834. When negligence cannot be imputed to parents in permitting child to cross tracks. Serano v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 114 App. Div. 684. Child must exercise care commensurate with her age. Serano v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 188 N. Y. 156. 328 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Children—Continued If jury finds child was sui juris they must determine his ob- servance of care according to his age. Hirtenstein v. Interurban St. R. R., 115 App. Div. 275. i Employment of child in violation of labor law. Lee.v. Sterling Silk Mfg. Co., 115 App. Div. 589. Where over 14 years and injury due to contributory negligence, certificate under labor law immaterial. Murphy »v. Interurban St. R. R., 56 Misc. 598. Child six years old instructed by parents, question of sui juris for jury. Pittel v. Burkhard, 121 App. Div. 571. The degree of care required of children on public street. Buscher v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 114 App. Div. 85. If jury find he exercised care according to his age there is no. contributory negligence on part of infant. Buscher v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 114 App. Div. 85. Injury to child in absence of attendant. Joost v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 113 App. Div. 499. Negligence of attendant not attributable to child’s mother. ... Joost v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 113 App. Div. 499. Contributory negligence of child 9 years old for jury. Gerber v. Boorstein, 113 App. Div: 808. No recovery for death of infant in arms when attendant guilty of contributory negligence. Paige v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 111 App. Div. 828. Contributory negligence of child run over by car or its parents, is for jury. Wabnick v. Dry Dock East Broadway & Battery R. R., 112 App. Div. 4. Infancy of plaintiff directed to clean machinery is only some evidence of negligence. Fish v. Utica Steam & Mohawk Valley Cotton Mills, 109 App. Div. 326. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 329 Children—Continued Care required by child, when question for jury. Buscher v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 106 App. Div. 493. Child of 10, although non sui juris must exercise some care in crossing street car track. West v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 105 App. ‘Div. 373. When parent can recover more than nominal damage for death of son. Predmore v. Consumer’s Light & Power Co., 99 App. Div. 551. Basis of recovery of father for injury to infant son. Ceigler v. Hopper, Morgan & Co., 90 App. Div. 379. Duty of child non sui juris to exercise care commensurate with its years and intelligence. Atchason v. United Traction Co., 90 App. Div. 571. Whether child exercised care commensurate with its age and in- telligence is question for jury. Atchason v. United Traction Co., 90 App. Div. 571. Failure to warn child as to particular danger. Goldberg v. Graham, 146 App. Div. 501. It is not the duty of parents to warn a child of dangerous places in the neighborhood before permitting him to play in the street. Goldberg v. Graham, 146 App. Div. 501. In case of a child on street railroad, motorman must reduce speed and give warning. Nitchman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 146 App. Div. 558. A child should use the same care that a person of the same age, education, mental and physical condition would use under like conditions. Marius v. Motor Delivery Co., 146 App. Div. 608. Whether child exercised care commensurate with its age and in- telligence, is question for jury. Atchason v. United Traction Co., 90 App. Div. 571. 330 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Children—Continued Question of contributory negligence is determined by the realiza- tion of the situation by the child. Gallenkamp v. Garvin Machine Co., 91 App. Div. 141. Care required by boy 9 years of age only such as he would be expected to exercise. : Robinson v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 91 App. Div. 158. Child non sui juris cannot be charged with negligence. Lafferty v. 8rd Ave. R. R., 85 App. Div. 592. If child not in fact negligent its parents’ negligence will not admit recovery. Lafferty v. 3rd Ave. R. R., 85 App. Div. 592. When negligence of parent is imputable to child. Pastore v. Livingston, 72 Misc. 555. A boy’s age and appearance should be considered on question of contributory negligence. Keating v. Coon, 102 App. Div. 112. Failure to file certificate does not enlarge employer’s liability. Lowery v. Anderson Co., 96 App. Div. 465. To render master liable for employment of, he must have known that servant was under sixteen or his appearance should have put him on inquiry. Stenson v. Flick Construction Co., 146 App. Div. 66. Employment of minor under sixteen years in dangerous occupa- tion. - Stenson v. Flick Construction Co., 146 App. Div. 66. The fact that mother of child consented to his employment in dangerous occupation does not prevent her from maintaining action as administratrix if there be other next of kin. Stenson v. Flick Construction Co., 146 App. Div. 66. Not negligence, as matter of law to permit children six years of age on the street and sidewalk of a city. Goldberg v. Graham, 146 App. Div. 501. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 331 Circumstantial Evidence For jury as to responsibility from circumstantial evidence. Miller v. Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co., 134 App. Div. 212. City City when sued for tort, defense of ultra vires available though not pleaded. Brennan v. City of Albany, 148 App. Div. 752. Codefendants A finding that one defendant is not guilty of negligence exonerates the other. Heffern v. Village of Haverstraw, 148 App. Div. 527. Co-employees Co-employees. . Hintze v. N. Y. Central R. R., 140 App. Div. 852. Failure to furnish competent employees. Isola v. D. L. & W. R. R., 184 App. Div. 313. Co-employee not vice principal. Eagen v. Buffalo Union Terminal Co., 200 N. Y. 478. Who are co-employees. Riccio v. International R. R. Co., 63 Misc. 588. Master not liable for co-employee’s error in judgment in selecting defective ladder. McConnell v. Morse I. W. & D. D. Co., 187 N. Y. 341. Co-employee of driver of vehicle may recover for damages from collision. Scheib v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 578. Assumption of risk by conductor from employment of intemperate motorman. White v. Lewiston & Youngstown F. R. Co., 94 App. Div. 4. 332 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Co-employees—Continued Concurring negligence of employer and a co-employee. Earle v. Clyde Steamship Co., 43 Misc. 535. When starter of car is alter ego of master and not fellow servant. Quinn v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 91 App. Div. 489. Proof that alleged incompetent co-employee was discharged after accident: Winters v. Naughton, 91 App. Div. 80. Master not exempt from liability where he furnishes machinery. Hazzard v. State of N. Y., 108 App. Div. 119. 5G , Who are deemed co-employees. 7 | Belt v. DuBois Sons Co., 97 App. Div. 392. ~- The specific acts of incompetency must have causal connection with the negligent act. Burnos v. American Sugar Refining Company, 107 App. Div. 286. Specific acts of incompetency must be shown. Alleott v. Kirkham, 101 App. Div. 77. Master not liable for negligence of one volunteering his services to his servant whereby another volunteer is injured. Ryan v. Phipps, 146 App. Div. 642. Collision Collision raising presumption of negligence. Stanbridge v. Nassau Mlectric R. R., 1385 App. Div. 38. Facts properly submitted to jury. Berkowitz v. Consolidated Gas Co., 134 App. Div. 389. Collision makes prima facie case calling for explanation. Levine v. Brooklyn Queens Co. & Co. R. R., 184 App. Div. 606. Collision at grade crossing. Phelps v. Erie R. R., 184 App. Div. 729. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 333 Collision—Continued Collision between wagon and car, complaint, allegations. Wright v. United Traction Co., 131 App. Div. 356. Negligence may be found where motorman suddenly increased speed so as to be unable to stop when collision threatened. Sauter v. International R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 400. Collision between automobile and pedestrian no presumption that owner was negligent. Seaman v. Mott, 127 App. Div. 18. Person seated with truck driver, paying no attention to car or looking while crossing street, and exercising no care to avoid accident, guilty of contributory negligence. Caminez v. Brooklyn, Queens Co. & Suburban R. R., 127 App. Div. 188. Railroad knowing persons liable to be on track at certain points must manage trains accordingly. Obenland v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 127 App. Div. 418. Where no negligence but error of judgment on both sides. Lust v. Syracuse R. T. Co., 142 App. Div. 290. Driver approaching car track could expect motorman to control car. Huther v. Nassau Electric R. R., 142 App. Div. 522. When driver of vehicle at crossing negligent and inattentive to duty, question of negligence for jury. Bamberg v. International R. R. Co., 53 Misc. 403. Collision between automobile and electric car at crossing. Ward v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 115 App. Div. 104. Driver of vehicle has right to presume that motorman would use ordinary care to prevent collision. Littlefield ». N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Misc. 637. Driver of vehicle not guilty of contributory negligence for failing to look second time after turning to cross track. Muller v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Misc. 640. 334 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Collision—Continued Collision between trains of different companies, liability to in- jured employees. Mintram v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R., 104 App. Div. 38. Employee cannot recover where collision of trains was caused, by failure of fellow servants to obey orders. Hayes v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 121 App. Div. 198. Collision of street car with vehicle, failure to look. Hinode Florist Co. v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 181 App. Div. 118. Collision with vehicle on railroad. Swift & Co. v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 136 App. Div. 34. Common Law Common law liability and employers’ liability act. Hammond »v. Union Bag and Paper Co., 186 App. Div. 100. Verdict not sustained at common law when trial was on the theory of employers’ liability act. Glynn v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 125 App. Div. 186. Complaint Dismissal of complaint. Swift & Co. v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 186 App. Div. 34. Dismissal of complaint, rule on appeal. Flanagan v. Carlin Construction Co., 134 App. Div. 236. Dismissal of complaint, rule on appeal. Gross v. Foster, 134 App. Div. 243. Failure to state cause of action, excavations. Kleinberg v. Schween, 134 App. Div. 493. Motion to dismiss at opening, complaint liberally construed. Catterson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 132 App. Div. 399. Sufficient allegation of negligence. Catterson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 132 App. Div. 399. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 305 Complaint—Continucd Dismissal of complaint; rule as to liberal construction in favor of pleader. Wright v. United Traction Co., 131 App. Div. 356. Where complaint alleges particular specifications of negligence, but no general allegation, plaintiff can’t recover. Murtagh »v. Joline, 70 Mise. 251. Where complaint dismissed, it will be assumed on appeal plain- tiff’s evidence is true and he is to have the most favorable inferences. Paul v. Consolidated Fireworks Co., 141 App. Div. 776. When decision on motion to dismiss reserved, not necessary to except in order to review. Smith v. Long Island R. R., 129 App. Div. 427. If plaintiff is to rely on common law or federal or state statutes he must so allege. Payne v. N. Y. Susquehanna & Western R. R., 141 App. Div. 833. Plaintiff alleging a domestic corporation duly organized and not denied the organization is admitted. Hollis ». Brooklyn Heights R. R., 128 App. Div. 821. Allegation that defendant is constructing building is admitted by failure to deny. Zettel v. Taylor, 128 App. Div. 251. Error to amend complaint at trial under objection, introducing new cause of action. Mandy ». Schleicher Co., 142 App. Div. 23. Point cannot be raised on appeal that complaint alleges specific act of negligence of superintendent so that all acts of negligence confined to that act, where other negligent acts submitted to jury. Campbell v. Long Island R. R., 127 App. Div. 258. Complaint alleging injury by materials falling from hoist care- lessly operated, will not admit proof that accident happened by defect in apparatus. Schultz v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 127 App. Div. 305. 306 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Complaint—Continued Complaint alleging plaintiff lawfully on premises, good on de- murrer. Stern v. Miller, 60 Misc. 103. Where complaint alleged negligence and the trial had that theory error for court to allege nuisance. Furst v. Zucker, 125 App. Div. 591. When allegations sufficient for denying motion to dismiss. Breen v. Gill, 125 App. Div. 642. When complaint not to be dismissed on opening, plaintiff en- titled to produce evidence. Darton v. Interborough R. T. Co., 125 App. Div. 836. Plaintiff may allege in a single cause of action all facts con- tributing to or causing accident. Payne v. N. Y.S. & W. R. R., 201 N. Y. 436. Plaintiff not compelled to separately state and number facts re- lied on to support action on each ground. Payne v. N. Y.S. & W. R. R., 141 App. Div. 833. Complaint naming particular injuries excludes all others unless it alleges injuries in general terms. Walsh v. Richmond Light & R. R. Co., 124 App. Div. 533. A motion to dismiss for not stating sufficient facts need not point out defects. Pagnillo v. Mack Paving & Construction Co., 142 App. Div. 491. e What plaintiff may show under general allegations of complaint. Roenbeck v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 123 App. Div. 606. Action against two defendants, one for concurrent negligence, plaintiff must separately state and number the causes of action. Hamnstrown v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 122 App. Div. 43. Plaintiff not required to negative in his complaint. Shaw v. Feltman, 121 App. Div. 597. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 337 Complaint—Continued When complaint states a cause of action for fall of glass from sky light. Shaw v. Feltman, 121 App. Div. 597. Where complaint embraces common law in action under em- ployers’ act, court may regard notice as surplusage and submit cause as one at common law. O’Neil v. Manufacturer’s Automatic Sprinkler Co., 143 App. Div. 56. Complaint need not allege precise language of employers’ act, it appearing the action was within the act. Harris v. Baltimore Machine & Elevator Works, 188 N. Y. 141. Separate acts of negligence, some at common law and others under act, may be alleged without separately stating each. Acardo v. N. Y. Contracting & Trucking Co., 116 App. Div. 793. A sufficient allegation of freedom from contributory negligence. Redhead v. Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co., 116 App. Div. 34. Amendment of complaint on trial setting up negligence, objec- tion of surprise. McDonald v. Holbrook, Cabot & Daly Co., 105 App. Div. 90. Motion to dismiss complaint because cause of action not made out. German v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 107 App. Div. 354. What allegations of injury do not sustain proof of gastritis. Brown v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 105 App. Div. 395. A disease not the necessary or natural result of the injury al- leged, must be pleaded specially. Brown v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 105 App. Div. 395. Allegation of willfully running over pedestrian having no knowl- edge of approaching train states a cause of action. Green v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R., 102 App. Div. 322. When cause of action at common law states unproven allegations of notice under employers’ act, these allegations are surplusage. Holm v. Empire Hardware Co., 102 App. Div. 505. 338 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Complaint—Continued Objection to complaint as not broad enough to sustain recovery, must be first taken at trial. Stern v. Westchester Electric R. R. Co., 99 App. Div. 491. When it must specifically allege a disease to justify proof of it as result of injury. Wilkins v. Nassau Newspaper Delivery Express Co., 98 App. Div. 130. Complaint to authorize proof of particular disease under general allegation of shock, the disease must inevitably result therefrom. Wilkins v. Nassau Newspaper Delivery Express Co., 98 App. Div. 130. Proof of injury to brain under allegation of injury to head, body, limbs, etc. Gleming v. Tuttle, 98 App. Div. 222. Proof of impaired sight and hearing under allegations of bruised and injured. Graham v. Bauland Co., 97 App. Div. 141. When complaint may be dismissed although verdict has been rendered for plaintiff. Glennon v. Erie R. R., 86 App. Div. 397. Complaint alleging failure to furnish safe place to work states cause of action at common law. Schermerhorn v. Glens Falls Cement Co., 94 App. Div. 600. Where complaint alleges only one feature plaintiff cannot recover on another feature of negligence. Limerick v. Holdsworth, 136 App. Div. 323. Exception to ruling on motion to dismiss is tested on theory of trial of case. Logerto v. Central Building Co., 123 App. Div. 840. Motion need not point out specifically the facts not stated in complaint. Pagnillo v. Mack Paving & Const. Co., 142 App. Div. 491. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 339 Compromise Rule that an offer to compromise may not be shown. Russell v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 104 App. Div. 149. When proof of offer of compromise and introduction of letters do not violate rule as to compromise. Russell v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 104 App. Div. 149. Conclusion Error for expert to give conclusion as to cause of failure of car to stop based on defective brake. Regan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 115 App. Div. 705. Condition Evidence of condition of wires previous to accident inferred by subsequent condition. . Kennealy v. West Chester El. R. R., 86 App. Div. 293. When a condition is presumed to continue. MacRoe »v. Chelsea Fiber Mills, 145 App. Div. 588. Conjecture Freedom from contributory negligence cannot be proven by con- jecture. Goldberg v. Herman, 136 App. Div. 532. Where cause of injury is mere conjecture, verdict will be set aside. Lane v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 125 App. Div. 808. When the word “think” is not a mere conjecture but is equivalent to recollect or recall. Boice v. Ulster & Delaware R. R. Co., 120 App. Div. 648. 340 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Contractor As to warning employees of the running of trains. DiNapoli v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 136 App. Div. 334. When servant of independent contractor cannot recover. Wirth v. General Railway Signal Co., 186 App. Div. 536. Where several contractors, each owes to the employer of the other the duty of due care. Smith v. Brady et al., 186 App. Div. 665. Independent contractors are not servants of owner, and relation of principal and agent does not exist. Mehler v. Fisch, 65 Misc. 549. Contractor. Filippone v. Reisenburger, 185 App. Div. 707. Contractors. Wynn »v. Carlin, 135 App. Div. 795. . Agreement that employees should be employees of contractor. Jones v. N. Y. C. & H.R. R. R., 134 App. Div. 39- When not liable for permitting employee to use freight elevator. Malaverneri v. Turner Construction Co., 141 App. Div. 360. When contractor liable for falling brick in building. Hughes v. Harbor & Suburban Building & Savings Association, 131 App. Div. 185. Not liable for injury to employee using wrong exit. Burke v. Cowen & Co., 130 App. Div. 207. Not liable to employee of sub-contractor for defect in way not necessary entrance to building. Petrie v. Small Realty Co., 141 App. Div. 681. Bound to use care to protect employees of other contractors from falling material. O’ Rourke v. Guy B. Waite & Co., 125 App. Div. 825. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 341 Contractor—Continued Contractor to use reasonable care to guard against accidents. McDonald v. Degnon Contracting Co., 124 App. Div. 824. Independent contractor placing sign on building, liable for its fall. McNulty v. Ludwig & Co., 125 App. Div. 291. Not liable for death of city employee unless due to method or manner of doing work. Riggs v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 134 App. Div. 672. Independent contractor, performing work, railroad not liable for unexplained explosion. Hall v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 488. Never an insurer of the workmen on the building. Wood v. Burke & Sons, 121 App. Div. 542. Violation of ordinance by contractor, city not liable. Carpenter v. City of N. Y., 115 App. Div. 552. Settlement with independent contractor, effect of. Barsalou v. Peirce, 109 Apy. Div. 506. Sub-contractor is liable to principal contractor for judgment recovered against latter for negligence of former. Phoenix Bridge Co. v. Creem, 102 App. Div. 354. Verdict against owner set aside where error in charge requires reversal as to contractor. Walsh v. Riesenberg, 94 App. Div. 466. Duty and liability of principal contractor to employee of sub- contractor. Nelson v. Young, 91 App. Div. 457. When municipality not liable for injury caused by independent contractor. Jewell v. City of Mt. Vernon, 91 App. Div. 578. The question of the liability of the contractor who knew of the insecure support of the flag stone should be left to the jury. Dougherty v. City of New York, 146 App. Div. 727. 342 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Contract When action against carrier for failure to transport products is based on negligence and not on contract. Richardson v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 122 App. Div. 120. One executing contract with carrier is bound by its terms although he did not read it, if any discrepancy appears. Ames v. Fargo, 114 App. Div. 666. Damages are limited to natural and proximate result of negli- gence though not contemplated on execution of contract. Silverblatt v. Brooklyn Telegraph & Messenger Co., 73 Misc. 38. Contributory Negligence Contributory negligence. McNamee v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 140 App. Div. 874. Absence of contributory negligence. Kane v. Williams, 140 App. Div. 857. Freedom from contributory negligence. question for jury. Makoski v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 186 App. Div. 110. Contributory negligence, street car. Christensen v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 184 App. Div. 703. Contributory negligence and negligence, error to decide as mat- ters of law. Jaffa v. Wassau Electric R. R. Co., 131 App. Div. 852. ° Rules as to contributory negligence. Dempsey v. Eberspacher, 131 App. Div. 285. Contributory negligence as a matter of law, person injured by collision in street. Mastin v. City of N. Y., 201 N. Y. 81. Rule relaxed where-no witnesses of accident. Glennon v. Star Co., 130 App. Div. 491. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 343 Contributory Negligence—Continued Where plaintiff’s evidence merely based on speculation, it will not support verdict. Clancy v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 201 N. Y. 235. Rule in case of incompetent person same as in case of decedent, circumstances may justify an inference of exercise of care. Cherbuliez v. Parsons, 59 Misc. 613. Contributory negligence must be determined by plaintiff’s act in relation to his own employment following directions of foreman. Dutcher v. Rockland Electric Co., 123 App. Div. 765. When crossing track and looking, no warning of car, cannot be said plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Murphy ». Interurban St. R. R., 56 Mise. 598. When defects of machine are brought to notice of master who has promised to repair, continued operation by employee not con- tributory negligence. Reich v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 120 App. Div. 445. Not a question for jury unless there is direct evidence or infer- ence that accident occurred through lack of care on part of decedent. Wheeler v. Sundstrom & Stratton Co., 148 App. Div. 499. Facts showing plaintiff has failed to show affirmatively that she was free from. contributory negligence. Solomon v. N. Y. City R. R., 50 Misc. 557. A party may by his acts create a controlling presumption that he is wanting in ordinary care and guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Lofsten v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 184 N. Y. 148. When only freedom from contributory negligence may be estab- lished by circumstantial evidence. Seidman v. L. I. R. R., 104 App. Div. 4. Failure to prove absence of contributory negligence; what must be proven. Goodhines v. Chase, 100 App. Div. 87. 344 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Contributory Negligence—Continued When freedom from contributory negligence may be inferred. Wolpers v. N. Y. & Queens Electric Light Co., 91 App. Div. 424. Contributory negligence not inferred as matter of law from knowledge of conditions. Keating v. Mott, 92 App. Div. 156. : When momentary forgetfulness of existence of defect is not con- tributory negligence. Delaney v. City of Mt. Vernon, 89 App. Div. 209. Where no proof points to the presence or absence of contributory negligence plaintiff must show decedent was not guilty of contrib- utory negligence. Scialo v. Steffens, 105 App. Div. 592. Corporations No presumption that one corporation will use the same insignia as another, it is question for jury. Casey v.,Lehigh Valley R..R., 128 App. Div. 86. Declaration of officer incompetent to prove negligence. Cobb v. United Engineering Co., 191 N. Y. 475. When declaration of superintendent not admissible against cor- poration. Gardner v. Schenectady R. R., 113 App. Div. 138. Liability for omission or commission of corporate acts. O’Donnell v. City of Syracuse, 184 N. Y. 1. Liability of for failure to employ competent agents. Ellsworth v. Franklin County Agricultural Society, 99 App. Div. 119. Liable for injuries received through negligence of its servants. Beecroft v. N. Y. Athletic Club, 111 App. Div. 392. Admission of the president of a corporation after accident, not admissible to show negligence of defendant. Kaplan uv. Friedman Construction Co., 148 App. Div. 14. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 345 Corporations—Continued When declarations of superintendent not admissible against corporation. Gardner v. Schenectady R. R., 113 App. Div. 133. Costs Extra allowance for not awarded in ordinary case. Leonard v. Union R. R. of N. Y., 98 App. Div. 204. Counsel Trial not properly conducted by, court may withdraw juror and order new trial before new jury. Kelsey v. City of N. Y., 123 App. Div. 381. Counterclaim Counterclaim founded on embezzlement through negligence in checking accounts. Smith v. London Assurance Corporation, 109 App. Div. 882. Court of Appeals What questions of law may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. Serano v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 188 N. Y. 156. Charitable Institutions Non-liability of charitable institutions. Cunningham ». Sheltering Arms, 135 App. Div. 178. Cross-examination Cross-examination. Blumquist v. Share & Trust Co., 135 App. Div. 709. When striking out testimony did not cure error in. Chernick v. Independent American Ice Cream Co., 66 Mise. 177. Contradictory statements may be shown. Kenney v. South Shore Natural Gas & Fuel Co., 134 App. Div. 859. 346 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Cross-Examination—Continued Party may not impeach his own witness by reading contradictory statements from book of minutes. Berkowisky v. N. Y. City R. R., 127 App. Div. 544. Cross-examination as to collateral matters, in discretion of the court. Carey v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 124 App. Div. 524. Error to permit as to other part of building than that which fell. Kupfersmith v. Hopper & Son, 122 App. Div. 31. Evidence proper tending to contradict witness. Ruemer v. Clark, 121 App. Div. 231. When a party should be allowed to cross-examine his own wit- ness. Zilver v. Graves Co., 106 App. Div. 583. When party cross-examining hostile witness cannot contradict witness. Smith v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 177 N. Y. 379. A matter of right, when directed to facts in issue or relevant: when it is to test accuracy or credibility of witness, its extent is in the discretion of the court. Dooling v. City of New York, 148 App. Div. 713. Custom Custom regarding poles to be tested. LaLuke v. Hudson R. Telephone Co., 186 App. Div. 136. Custom effecting negligence in dangerous places. Trieber v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 134 App. Div. 661. Custom and method of doing work. Glennon v. Star Co., 180 App. Div. 491. Master chargeable with notice of custom of employees of long standing about their work. Muller v. Oakes Mfg. Co., 113 App. Div. 689. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 347 Custom—Continued When error to exclude evidence of custom of defendant in throw- ing bundles from moving trains. Clifford v. N. Y. Central R. R., 111 App. Div. 809. Custom of railroad as to receiving passengers in car barn may be shown on redirect examination. Gleason v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 99 App. Div. 209. A custom to give notice of starting train must have been known to passenger’s escort. Dunne v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 99 App. Div. 571. Custom as to guarding elevators and failure to maintain. Hackett v. Koehler & Co., 140 App. Div. 448. Common usage or custom in a business is a test of negligence but not conclusive. Shannahan v. Empire Engineering Corporation, 204 N. Y. 543. Damages Expenditure for decedent showing damage. Murphy »v. Erie R. R., 134 App. Div. 992. When damages excessive. Vilicki v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 65 Mise. 43. Damages, excavation. Hack v. Dady, 184 App. Div. 253. No recovery for fright or physical consequences thereof. Hack v. Dady, 134 App. Div. 253. Verdict excessive. O’Doherty v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., 184 App. Div. 298. On allegation of injury to person, the law implies damages that naturally result. Keefe v. Lee, 197 N. Y. 68. Nominal damages, when plaintiff entitled to. Levine v. Brooklyn, Queens County & Suburban R. R., 184 App. Div. 606. 348 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Damages—Continued Damages, not excessive. Finkelstein v. Kramer, 133 App. Div. 565. Damages, not excessive. McCormick v. Rochester R. R., 1383 App. Div. 760. Damage, excessive. Clancy v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 183 App. Div. 119. Subsequent acts aggravating an injury. Hynes v. State of New York, 63 Misc. 592. Evidence, question for expert. Devine v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 131 App. Div. 142. Incompetent evidence of subsequent expenses. Statler v. Ray Manufacturing Co., 195 N. Y. 478. Damages based on earning capacity and future prospects. Hughes ». Harbor & Suburban Building & Savings Association, 131 App. Div. 185. Occupation and business of person injured and his income deter- mines admissibility of evidence of profits or earnings. Gumbert v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 195 N. Y. 273. Loss by uncertain fluctuating capital improper, earning capacity admissible. Gumbert v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 195 N. Y. 273. Error in refusal to charge. Conklin v. Central N. Y. Telephone & Telegraph Co., 180 App. Div. 308. Plaintiff can recover for any condition which did not exist before accident. Miehlke v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 438. Value of life estimated by character, qualities, capacity, age, sex, condition, etc. Schramme v. Lewinson, 126 App. Div. 279. Injury to plaintiff’s nerves is an element of damage. Foster v. Crooker Co., 142 App. Div. 268. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 349 Damages—Continued Where loss of memory claimed as damage jury may attribute failure to testify as to looking, to this. Hickman v. Schimper & Co., 125 App. Div. 216. No damage recovered from mere fright or for injuries resulting from fright, there must be some relation between bodily injury and the fright. Hack v. Dady, 142 App. Div. 510. Damages may be recovered where bodily injury and fright result in shock. Hack v. Dady, 142 App. Div. 510. It must be shown that the disease was a necessary and direct result of the injury. Johnson v. City of Troy, 124 App. Div. 29. Special damages must be pleaded to be recovered. Johnson v. City of Troy, 124 App. Div. 29. Error to submit question of permanence of injuries if no evidence on that subject except an expert, who gives no opinion. Perelli v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 120 App. Div. 372. Error to exclude evidence as to manner of living of the family and as to widow and next of kin. Orendorf v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 119 App. Div. 638. A fanciful amount and unworthy of consideration. Mendelson v. VanRensselaer, 118 App. Div. 516. Failure to show that injuries resulted from accident. DesMoineaux v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 848. Error to admit evidence showing service and expenditures. Murphy ». Erie R. R. Co., 202 N. Y. 242. A verdict cannot be based on plaintiff’s earnings in criminal employment. Murray »v. Interurban St. R. R., 118 App. Div. 35. What proof ample in action alleging loss of wife’s services. Keenan v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 118 App. Div. 56. 350 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Damages—Continued Elements of damages as to present injuries Weir v. Union R. R. Co., 188 N. Y. 416. Court of appeals will not review decision of Appellate Division as. to question of excessive damages. Serano v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 188 N. Y. 156. Items of damages recoverable by licensee. McFadden v. Thompson Starrett Co., 116 App. Div. 285. When increase in damages would be speculative. Sticht v. Buffalo Cereal Co., 116 App. Div. 632. When the award of damages is excessive. Schierloh v. Interurban St. R. R., 115 App. Div. 455. Usable value of horse during period of disability. . A. Buchanan’s Sons v. Crauford Co., 112 App. Div. 278. No recovery where a mental or nervous shock only is proven. Newton v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 106 App. Div. 415. Refusal to charge, right of jury to bring in verdict for nominal damages. Rosenberg v. N. Y. City R. R., 107 App. Div. 223. Where plaintiffs are denied equitable relief damages are not re- coverable at special term. Sadlier v. City of New York, 104 App. Div. 82. When resulting damages are too remote. Lennox v. Interurban St. R. R., 104 App. Div. 110. Speculative damages, charge as to. Predmore v. Consumer’s Light & Power Co., 99 App. Div. 551. When continuous recoverable in one action. Ahrens v. City of Rochester, 97 App. Div. 480. In case of death of next of kin before trial. Pitkin v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 94 App. Div. 31. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 351 Damages—Continued Nominal damages for inability to work only allowable where loss of earnings not proven. Camparetti v. Union R. R. of N. Y. City, 95 App. Div. 66. Father’s claim for injury to son does not cover support after be- coming of age, loss of time or services in care of son. Ceigler v. Hopper, Morgan Co., 90 App. Div. 379. Proof as to existence of physician’s services not paid for. Heater v. D. L. & W. R. R., 90 App. Div. 495. Limited to pecuniary injuries. Smith v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 177 N. Y. 379. Testimony as to amount paid for medical attendance not com- petent unless shown necessary. Mead v. Goldman, 145 App. Div. 509. Proof of weekly earnings and decedent’s expectancy of life, proper. Austin v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 108 App. Div. 249. When continuous recovery may be had up to time of commence- ment of the action. Ahrens v. City of Rochester, 97 App. Div. 480. Injury to trees and timber, property value with and without trees. Donahue v. Keystone Gas Co., 90 App. Div. 286. In action for death, defendant only liable for reasonable pe- cuniary damages, not punitive damages. Wagner v. Clausen & Son Brewing Co., 146 App. Div. 70. Evidence of loss of profits not admissible; loss of service ad- missible, earnings may be proved. Walsh v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 204 N. Y. 58. Danger Warning of foremen sufficient to protect child from hidden dan- gers. Kelly v. Hudson Companies, 65 Mise. 574. 352 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Danger—Continued Voluntarily placing self in danger. O’Hare v. O’Rourk Engineering Co., 135 App. Div. 348. Failing to instruct as to danger, question for jury. Finkelstein v. Kramer, 133 App. Div. 565. Necessary and obvious guarding against. Wynkoop v. Ludlow Valve Mfg. Co., 196 N. Y. 324. Exposure to hidden danger. Matej v. India Rubber & Gutta Percha Co., 133 App. Div. 131. Discovery of danger. Matej v. India Rubber & Gutta Percha Co., 133 App. Div. 131. Danger open and obvious to employee. Millerick v. Wing, 133 App. Div. 453. Danger apparent to servant and foreman. Millerick v. Wing, 183 App. Div. 453. Dangerous machines and substances. Wilson v. Faxon, Williams & Faxon, 63 Misc. 561. Danger obvious and assumed. Davenport v. Oceanic Amusement Co., 1382 App. Div. 368. Employer not bound to anticipate every possible danger.. Packtor v. City of N. Y., 182 App. Div. 373. Failure to warn or instruct, negligence. Pepe v. Utica Pile Foundry Co., 182 App. Div. 458. Injury to child by dangerous weapon in open place. Ship v. Fridenburg, 132 App. Div. 782. Dangerous appliances inherently dangerous in character. Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co., 195 N. Y. 478. When servant without fault of self or master comes into danger- ous position which may do injury, master must afford means to change position. Deegan v. Gutta Percha & Rubber Co., 131 App. Div. 101. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 353 | Danger—Continued Sudden involuntary act in time of danger. Gorman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 131 App. Div. 207. Duty to guard or light dangerous places, warn employees of hidden dangers. Farley v. White Engineering Co., 131 App. Div. 228. After warning of danger assumption of risk. Lumsden v. Thompson Scenic R. R., 130 App.. Div. 209. Question for jury whether decedent used reasonable care in presence of danger. McCaffrey v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 115. Nothing to lead prudent man to anticipate. Nash v. Crane Co., 141 App. Div. 665. Reasonable and prudent care to protect from danger. Miller v. Twiname, 129 App. Div. 623. Where work dangerous, require protection as to details, employee acting as superintendent, the employer is liable. Anderson v. Pa. Steel Co., 61 Misc. 504. Duty of servants to inspect and exercise caution in dangerous places. Johnston v. Syracuse Lighting Co., 193 N. Y. 592. Whether owner of unfenced lot, when fire is built thereon from which child is burned is guilty of negligence, is question for jury. Specht v. Waterbury Co., 70 Misc. 404. Hidden danger known to master but not to servant, master liable. Palmi Jiano v. Hyde McFarlin Co., 126 App. Div. 221. Employee had right to assume that roof of mine was properly supported. Tanne v. U. S. Gypsum Co., 126 App. Div. 244. Motorman may assume that person on track will not remain in dangerous position. Kozlowski v. Rochester Syracuse & Eastern R. R., 142 App. Div. 245. 354 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Danger—Continued Master constructing building bound to light it for employees to avoid danger. Bausert v. Thompson Starrett Co., 126 App. Div. 332. Hidden danger known to employer, knowledge of must be com- municated to employee. Connolly v. Hall & Grant Construction Co., 192 N. Y. 182. For jury to say as to care in guarding against danger. Lamb v. Union R. R. Co., 125 App. Div. 286. Negligence not based on failure to instruct where the danger is obvious. Bovi v. Hess, 123 App. Div. 389. Not negligent to fail to warn of danger known to servant. LaDuke v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 124 App. Div. 106. Where no proof of instructions as to danger. Causullo v. Lenox Construction Co., 122 App. Div. 672. Rule that master must instruct, immaterial where servant familiar with work, machine and danger. Carron v. Standard Refrigerator Co., 122 App. Div. 296. When passenger in automobile not guilty of negligence in failing to jump in presence of eminent danger. Sherwood v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 120 App. Div. 639. The burden is on plaintiff to show that an occupation was known to be dangerous. McDonald ». Triest, 119,App. Div. 75. Danger not obvious to a boy commencing work on machine with- out instruction. Smith v. Wessel Mfg. Co., 117 App. Div. 834. By furnishing competent foreman to give warning, master’s duty performed and he is not liable for foreman’s negligence in detail of work. Curran v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 347. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 355 Danger—Continued Plaintiff failing to remain in place of safety cannot recover. Caf v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 52 Misc. 570. Master not relieved of liability by delegating duty to instruct servant of danger to another. Tivnan v. Keahon, 117 App. Div. 50. If master provides a safe way of egress and employee adopts another, he cannot recover. Burns v. Old Sterling Iron & Mining Co., 188 N. Y. 175. Where carrier uses an appliance so dangerous as to possibly injure passenger which cannot be discovered by inspection, it can- not escape liability because defect discovered. Paine v. Geneva Waterloo S. F. & C. L. Traction Co., 115 App. Div. 729. Employee choosing most dangerous of two methods cannot re- cover for injury not occurring if the less dangerous had been se- lected. Keeler v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 114 App. Div. 807. Duty of owner of premises to give notice of danger. Gilfillan v. German Hospital & Dispensary in N. Y., 115 App. Div. 48 Sufficient evidence from one witness and plaintiff to have cause submitted to jury. Weiller v. N. Y. City R. R., 51 Misc. 668. When defect in walk too slight to suggest danger. Carr v. Degnon Contracting Co., 48 Misc. 531. When master not liable for failure to warn servant of dangers of employment. Dillon v. National Coal Tar Co., 181 N. Y. 215. Where defects in pole could be discovered by tests or it was im- properly supported, parties erecting same liable. Durfield v. City of N. Y., 101 App. Div. 581. When place for work is dangerous what degree of care required by one working’ there. Hennessey v. 42nd St. R. R., 44 Misc. 198. 356 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Danger—Continued Where work not inherently dangerous. McNamara v. City of N. Y., 144 App. Div. 504. Employee claiming: negligence in not warning of danger, must show master’s knowledge of the hidden danger. McDonald v. Triest, 119 App. Div. 75. Error to dismiss complaint because plaintiff’s father had neg- lected to warn of danger. It is for the jury to say whether the conduct of the parents constitutes reasonable care. Goldberg v. Graham, 146 App. Div. 501. Death Less evidence required as to contributory negligence. Nichols v. Searle Mfg. Co., 184 App. Div. 62. Burden on plaintiff to show proximate cause. Mascarillo v. Haines, 180 App. Div. 135. Where freedom of decedent from contributory negligence is mere speculation, evidence will not support verdict. Clancy v. N. Y., N. H. & H.R. R., 201 N.Y. 235. Administratrix must show affirmatively decedent’s freedom from contributory negligence. Ostrander v. Orange Co. Traction Co., 125 App. Div. 603. Where no eye witness to occurrence, slight evidence of contrib- utory negligence required. Jones v. Ryan, 125 App. Div. 282. Action brought by half sister of decedent, rule as to damages. Murphy v. Erie R. R. Co., 202 N. Y. 242. Jury need not determine the cause of scientifically, may disregard opinion of experts. Kelly v. Wills, 116 App. Div. 758. Death of horse must be shown to have been caused by the collision. Nocera v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 113 App. Div. 419 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 357 Death—Continued Action for death by negligence may be maintained although widow and next of kin are non-resident aliens. Alfson v. Bush Co., 182 N. Y. 398. In action for death, plaintiff’s intestate must be affirmatively shown free from contributory negligence and the inference of the use of reasonable care on the part of the intestate must be the only one that can be reasonably drawn from the facts. Griffith v. L. I. R. R. Co., 146 App. Div. 693. No presumption in such case, of Brudencs 6 on intestate’s part or regard for safety. Griffith v. L. I. R. R. Co., 146 App. Div. 693. Decedent Plaintiff representing decedent must show injury was proximate cause of death. Levy v. Mott Iron Works, 148 App. Div. 7. Declarations When declarations as to mjury made after accident do not prevent recovery. Beecroft v. N. Y. Athletic Club, 111 App. Div. 392. Error to prove declarations of truckman after accident that he was driving fast, etc., not part of res gestae. Wagner v. Clausen & Son Brewing Co., 146 App. Div. 70. Defects Failure to discover by inspection. Herbert v. Hudson River Electric Co., 136 App. Div. 107. Defects not discovered by inspection. Gardner v. Westinghouse Electric & Gen. Mfg. Co., 141 App. Div. 5. Employer knowing hidden defect must communicate to em- ployee. Connolly v. Hall & Grant Const. Co., 192 N. Y. 182. 358 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Defects—Continued There must be proof of notice of defect or condition which would result in notice. Schlappendorf v. American R. R. Traffic Co., 142 App. Div. 554. The particular defect must be the cause of accident. Schlappendorf v. American R. R. Traffic Co., 142 App. Div. 554. Defects must have existed so long as to charge master with neg- ligence in failing to discover. Schlappendorf v. American R. R. Traffic Co., 142 App. Div. 554. Where defects in shop windows, employee cannot recover with- out evidence that master had notice of the defect. Rockstrom v. Astoria Marble Co., 121 App. Div. 144. Proof that defect was in original construction or caused by use. Bogendoerfer v. Jacobs, 97 App. Div. 355. Defendants Joint tort feasors may be sued jointly or separately, satisfaction as to one is satisfaction as to all. Parks v. City of N. Y., 111 App. Div. 836. When good cause of action is stated against two defendants. Boehm v. Hammond & Sloane (inc.), 145 App. Div. 511. Defenses Charge not error which said “defendants had no excuse to offer, none which they could invoke.” Madden v. Hughes, 185 N. Y. 466. Delegation of Duty What may or may not be delegated determined. Belt v. DuBois Son’s Co., 97 App. Div. 392. Admissibility of affidavit of witness of what another witness had said. Leggett v. City of Watertown, 93 App. Div. 80. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 359 Demurrer Contributory negligence may be tested by demurrer to complaint. Mangan v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 50 Misc. 388. What is admitted by demurrer. Ellsworth v. Franklin Co. Agricultural Society, 99 App. Div. 119. Complaint liberally construed in favor of pleader. Ellsworth v. Franklin County Agricultural Society, 99 App. Div. 119. Demurrer admits express, implied and argumentative allega- tions in the complaint. Ellsworth v. Franklin Co. Agricultural Society, 99 App. Div. 119. Denial Denial of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief not permitted in case of knowledge. Purdy v. City of N. Y., 126 App. Div. 320. A bold and unexplained denial of any knowledge cannot be made when matters of record are at hand and truthfulness can be de- termined. Olsen v. Singer Mfg. Co., 143 App. Div. 142. What proof proper under general denial. Griffin v. Interurban St. R. R., 46 Misc. 328. Derrick Derrick used for months in same place is permanent structure and master liable for construction and maintenance. Watson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 127 App. Div. 134. Details Detail of work. Pratt v. McKee, 1385 App. Div. 752. Detail of work and safe place to work, difference between. Powers v. Ist National Bank of America, 133 App. Div. 257. 360 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Details—Continued What is a daily detail. Nappa v. Erie R. R., 195 N. Y. 176. Servant must use his own intelligence as to detail of work. Tweed v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 180 App. Div. 231. Employer not insurer nor liable for error in Judgment in detail of work unless under employers’ act. Tweed-v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 180 App. Div. 231. Substitution of new core in machine a detail of work. Evans v. Eastman Kodak Co., 129 App. Div. 768. Repair to press machine not a detail but duty of master. Staskowski v. Standard Oil Co:, 127 App. Div. 17. The direction of the foreman as to use of short fuses is a detail of work. Mahoney v. Cayuga Lake Cement Co., 126 App. Div. 164. Where box not properly fastened falls, placing of box is a detail of work for which master not liable at common law. Williams v. Citizen’s Steamboat Co., 122 App. Div. 188. Master not liable for failure of employee to perform detail of work if intestate was fully aware of the situation. King v. Ford, 121 App. Div. 404. Where the negligence is not a mere detail of foreman’s work, master liable where forgman acted as superintendent. Guilmartin v. Solvay Process Co., 189 N. Y. 490. When forming the common employment, but all in process of creating the unsafe place. Mullin v. Genesee Co Electric L. Power & Gas Co., 202 N. Y. 275. Where master furnishes competent foreman he is not liable for foreman’s negligence in detail of his work. Curran v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 347. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 361 Details—Continued Detail of work in which superintendent, foreman and workman are fellow servants, master not liable. Connolly v. Hall & Grant Construction Co., 117 App. Div. 387. When negligence exists in the details of the work. Dolan v. Herring, Hall & Marvin Safe Co., 105 App. Div. 366. How far selection of appliance is a detail of work. Ebbitt v. Milliken, 103 App. Div. 211. Master not liable for detail of work when the negligence is that of foreman nor liable for negligence of gang foreman. Beauregard v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 136 App. Div. 834. Master has a right to entrust detail of work to foreman and is not liable. .Feola v. Orange County Road Construction Co., 129 App. Div. 435. At common law master not liable for negligence of servant as to detail of work. Manser ». Astoria Veneer Mills, 146 App. Div. 478. Dismissal of complaint Motion for need not point out specifically the facts which it fails to state. Pagnillo v. Mack Paving & Construction Co., 142 App. Div. 491. Driving Driving on tracks. Swift & Co. v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 186 App. Div. 34. Careless driving. Bradley v. Jaeckel, 65 Misc. 509. 362 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Driving—Continued Driver bound to exercise care. Wood v. Conéy Island & Brooklyn R. R., 133 App. Div. 270. Proof of accident caused by some deféct, error to dismiss com- plaint. Carson v. City of N. Y., 113 App. Div. 679. Drugs and Druggists Sale of dangerous drugs and substances. Wilson v. Faxon, Williams & Faxon, 63 Misc. 561. Selling goods liable to explode, under obligation to inspect. Bruckel v. Milhau’s Son, 116 App. Div. 832. When negligent in making out prescription. Horst v. Walter, 53 Misc. 594. Duty Juasi-judicial or discretionary duty; when failure to keep public building in repair, negligence. Pitman v. City of N. Y., 141 App. Div. 670. When it cannot be delegated so as to relieve master. Ambellan v. Barcalo Mfg. Co., 118 App. Div. 547. Electricity Death from shock; electric wires broken. McNamee v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 140 App. Div. 874. Guarding the escape of electricity. Braun v. Buffalo General Electric Co., 200 N. Y. 484.. Guarding of electricity question for jury. Braun v. Buffalo Gen. Electric Co., 200 N. Y. 484. Plaintiff must show shock received from defendant’s wires and negligence of construction. Estabrook v. Newburgh L. H. & P. Co., 141 App. Div. 683. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 363 Electricity—Continued Failure to provide guards when such were not practicable or feasible. Conklin v. Cent. N. Y. Telephone & Telegraph Co., 180 App. Div. 308. Electric light company controlling lines in store, liable for care of same and for injuries to clerk by falling of lamp. Fish v. Waverly E. L. & Power Co., 189 N. Y. 336. Where electric company owed to licensee or trespasser no active duty or any duty to keep wires insulated at point of accident. Mangan v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 50 Misc. 388. Election Where there is no election to proceed at common law or under employers’ act. O’Neil v. Manufacturers Automatic Sprinkler Co., 143 App. Div. 56. Elevator Elevator to be guarded. Stokes v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 134 App. Div. 363. ° Failure to prove defects in elevator. Scott v. Nauss Bros. Co., 141 App. Div. 255. Contributory negligence of employee using elevator. Malaverneri v. Turner Const. Co., 141 App. Div. 360. Contributory negligence of person injured. Jackson v. Greene, 134 App. Div. 918. Duty to exercise ordinary care in operating. Frahm »v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 131 App. Div. 747. Owner operating elevator liable to person repairing the same and to use care to avoid injury. Schwartz v. Onward Construction Co., 130 App. Div. 588. Constructing company liable to employer for negligence of its engineer in operating. Henry v. Stanley Hod Elevator Co., 129 App. Div. 613. 364 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Elevator—Continued Open door to elevator is not an invitation to enter elevator where no one in charge. Kaplan v. Lyons Building & Operating Co., 61 Misc. 315 Doors open not invitation to enter. elevator. Green v. Urban Contracting & Heating Co., 106 App. Div. 460. Electrical worker injured in elevator. Lynch v. Elektron Mfg. Co., 195 N. Y. 171. Use of reasonable care in operating elevator. Genovesia v. Pelham Operating Co., 130 App. Div. 200. Person operating must use care in guarding. Anderson v. Pelham Hod Elevator Co., 129 App. Div. 639. Where only testimony was that of an expert, as to other form of construction at time of accident, not evidence of negligence. Young v. Mason Stable Co., 193 N. Y. 188. A statute as to guarding may create duty unknown to common law. Racine v. Morris, 201 N. Y. 240. Fall of, caused by employee failing to stop before reaching top; contributory negligence. Bowers v. Norwich Pharmical Co., 124 App. Div. 31. When lessor not bound to inspect elevator. Haigh v. Edelmeyer & Morgan Hod Elevator Co., 123 App. Div. 376. Where no evidence of negligence, defect or want of repair, plaintiff cannot recover. Fowquet v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 53 Misc. 121. Falling down elevator shaft, when non-suit error. Grey v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 187 N. Y. 376. If owner of building assumes to control it he must keep it in repair. Rosenberg v. Schoolherr, 116 App. Div. 289. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 365 Elevator—Continued Where decedent killed by moving elevator plaintiff need not show the cause of movement to recover. Croce v. Buckley, 115 App. Div. 354. Where plaintiff rides on elevator at solicitation of plaintiff’s servant without authority, and in spite of warning, defendant not liable. McGuirk v. Manhattan Life Insurance Co., 50 Misc. 590. When rule of res ipsa loquitur applies, and defendant’s negli- gence for jury. Samuels v. McKesson, 113 App. Div. 497. When burden on plaintiff to show he was rightfully on elevator as passenger. McDonough v. Pelham Hod Elevating Co., 111 App. Div. 585. Leaving elevator door open is not invitation to enter. Green v. Urban Contracting & Heating Co., 106 App. Div. 460. Duty of care and inspection imposed on owner. Rogendoerfer v. Jacobs, 97 App. Div. 355. Although master posted notice forbidding employees from riding on elevator, master’s acquiescence question for jury. Aken v. Barnet & Aufsesser Knitting Co., 118 App. Div. 463. When master not liable for fall of object down shaft through negligence of fellow servant. Deebach v. Gair Co., 143 App. Div. 489. Emergency Emergency. Dwyer v. N. Y. Central R. R., 186 App. Div. 87. Person acting in emergency not guilty of contributory negligence. Gartland v. N. Y. Zoological Soc’y, 185 App. Div. 163. Acts done in an emergency pated not most prudent do not con- stitute negligence. Palmer v. Larchmont Horse R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 341. 366 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Emergency—Continued Failure to use most efficient remedy in emergency. City of N. Y. v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 90 App. Div. 66. Question for jury whether reasonable care was used. Gorman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 181 App. Div. 207 Employees Employees, duty to defendant. Cooper v. Jordan, 135 App. Div. 718. Employee, duty to. Kozak v. Erie R. R., 185 App. Div. 726. Agreement that they should be employees of contractors. Jones v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 184 App. Div. 39. Employees to be competent and sufficient in number. Farley v. White Engineering Co., 131 App. Div. 228. Employees may be employed and paid by one and yet be the servant of another in a particular transaction. Freibaum v. Brady, 143 App. Div. 220. Difference in character of work.’ Fouquet v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 53 Mise. 121. An emergency servant and fellow servant of driver, master not liable for his injury. Gunderson v. Eastern Brewing Co., 71 Misc. 519. When employment of servants who do not understand English language, negligence. Date v. N. Y. Glucose Co., 114 App. Div. 789. Injured in leaving premises in unusual manner. Gilfillan v. German Hospital & Dispensary in N. Y., 115 App. Div. 48. Injury to applicant for work. McDonough »v. James Reilly Repair & Supply Co., 47 Mise. 109. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 367 Employment Master and servant, question for jury. Jones v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 134 App. Div. 39. Burden is on plaintiff to show his employment by defendant. Davis v. Martin, 111 App. Div. 411. Proof of employment by identification. Cohen v. Consolidated Gas Co., 187 App. Div. 213. Evidence sufficient to show employment. Muldoon »v. City Fireproofing Co., 134 App. Div. 453. Error to permit a workman to testify that he was employed by defendant corporation. He may state the name of the individual employing him and the position he held with defendant. McKenna »v. Snare & Triest Co., 147 App. Div. 855. Employers’ Liability Act Who is superintendent under employers’ liability act. Buckley v. Beinhauer, 136 App. Div. 540. Acts done by superintendent chargeable to master. Martin v. Cornell, 186 App. Div. 585. Employers’ liability act, defective machinery. Girshoff v. Marx & Jacobson, 140 App. Div. 886. Employers’ liability act, derricks. Pratt v. McKee, 135 App. Div. 752. Employers’ liability act. Decora v. American Carbide Co., 186 App. Div. 52. Employers’ liability act. Lee v. Western Electric Co., 185 App. Div. 60. Employers’ liability act. Mattson v. Phoenix Construction Co., 185 App. Div. 234. 368 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Employers’ Liability Act—Continued Assuming risk for jury. Wittmer v. Fairhurst, 1384 App. Div. 305. Sufficiency of notice. Hurley v. Olcott, 134 App. Div. 631. Negligence of superintendent. Larson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 134 App. Div. 679 Employers’ liability act. Finkelstein v. Kramer, 183 App. Div. 565. Employers’ liability act. Heilig v. Burns, 133 App. Div. 764. Negligence based on failure to make rules action is at common law and not under act. Davenport v. Oceanic Amusement Co., 132 App. Div. 368. Even though notice served, action may be at common law and not under act. Davenport v. Oceanic Amusement Co., 182 App. Div. 368. Failure to employ persons to give signals, action at common law and not under act. Simpson v. Foundation Co., 182 App. Div. 375. Pleading must show that cause of accident is one for which master liable under act. Simpson v. Foundation Co., 132 App. Div. 375. e Employers’ liability act. Foley v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 132 App. Div. 506. When master liable for negligence of superintendent. LoMonaco v. Murphy Const. Co., 182 App. Div. 674. When neither complaint or notice served. what sufficient to bring cause within act. Bertolami v. United Engineering & Contracting Co., 182 App. Div. 804. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 369 Employers’ Liability Act—Continued Defective notice not cured by amendment of complaint. Bertolami v. United Engineering & Contracting Co., 132 App. Div. 804. When skids are not ways under act. Heiser v. Cincinnati Abattoir Co., 141 App. Div. 400. Superintendents are not fellow servants only when acting in performance of their duties. Cavanagh v. Central New England R. R.,.131 App. Div. 856. Waiver of employers’ liability act; service of notice shown by words or acts. Wolven v. Gabler, 132 App. Div. 45. Injury to employee by breaking of tool used by him for purpose not intended. Aitken v. Cornell Co., 130 App. Div. 824. Assumption of risk. Quigg v. Post & McCord, 131 App. Diy. 155. Skids are not ways. Nappa v. Erie R. R., 195 N. Y. 176. Notice; what notice should contain. Finnigan v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 194 N. Y. 244. Entire lack of information required by statute not overcome by knowledge from some other source. Finnigan v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 194 N. Y. 244. Employers’ liability act; sufficiency and contents of notice. Matrusciello v. Milliken Bros., 129 App. Div. 661. Judgment must be reversed if notice is insufficient, irrespective of negligence. Young v. Bradley & Son, 129 App. Div. 678. 370 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Employers’ Liability Act—Continued Notice containing accurate statement of physical cause of .in- jury sufficient, even if it fail to specify as to violation of master’s duty. Impellizzieri v. Chas. Cranford, 141 App. Div. 755. If action fails at common law, judgment cannot be sustained un- der the act if the issues on which such liability is predicated have not been passed upon by jury. Impellizzieri v. Chas. Cranford, 141 App. Div. 755. Failure to promulgate rules for signals not within the act. Matrusciello v. Milliken Bros., 141 App. Div. 769. Safe place to work, engineer not vice principal. Matrusciello v. Milliken Bros., 141 App. Div. 769. When wall under construction was not ways and means under that act. Ripp v. Fuchs, 129 App. Div. 321. Right of action existing at common law does not prevent plain- tiff from bringing action under the act. Proctor ». Rockville Center Milling & Construction Co., 141 App. Div. 900. Failure to instruct workman of danger of explosion is negligence. Haley v. Solvay Process Co., 127 App. Div. 753. A railroad law to foreman, foreman is alter ego of railroad and railroad liable for his acts. Laplaca v. Lake Shore & M. 8. R. R., 127 App. Div. 848. Where foreman had removed safety guards previous to plaintiff’s working, jury could find that plaintiff did not assume risk. Travis v. Haan, 128 App. Div. 77. Notice required is to enable master to investigate claim and adjust or resist it. Palmieri v. S. Pearson & Son (Inc.), 128 App. Div. 231. Omission to perform act of superintendent cannot be raised first on appeal. Campbell v. L. I. R. R., 127 App. Div. 258. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 371 Employers’ Liability Act—Continued Notice under act and complaint alleging a specific act of negli- gence by superintendent, negligence confined to that act. Campbell v. L. I. R. R., 127 App. Div. 258. Where question of timely service of notice is for jury. Trotto v. Bellew & Merritt Co., 127 App. Div. 400. Tools and appliances; while defendant may be liable for failure to furnish proper appliances, servants may assume obvious risk. Gorman »v. Millikan, 142 App. Div. 207. Sufficiency of notice. Foster v. Crooker Co., 142 App. Div. 268. Object and form of notice. Foster v. Crooker Co., 142 App. Div. 268. No recovery unless plaintiff exercised care and diligence. Kennedy v. N. Y. Telephone Co., 125 App. Div. 846. After employer has complied with law, employee only assumes necessary risks of employment. Graves v. Stickley Co., 125 App. Div. 182. Defective notice under act. Glynn v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 125 App. Div. 186. Employers’ liability act applies to employees of municipality en- gaged in excavation. Josupeet v. City of Niagara Falls, 70 Misc. 638. Insufficiency of notice under. Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479. What is not act of superintendent under act. Quinlan v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 191 N. Y. 329. To hold master, negligence of superintendent must be while he was acting as such. Droge v. John N. Robins Co., 123 App. Div. 537. 372 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Employers’ Liability Act—Continued Recovery only for negligence of superintendent while in service of defendant. Droge v. John N. Robins Co., 123 App. Div. 537. Whether employee assumes risk of employment is question of fact. ‘ Gallo v. Dunn, 71 Misc. 132. Servant assumes necessary risks and obvious risk is for jury. Logerto v. Central Building Co., 123 App. Div. 840. Insufficient notice under act. Finnigan v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 122 App. Div. 712. A cause of action not recognized at common law. Weitzman v. Barber Asphalt Co., 190 N. Y. 452. Negligence of employee is only chargeable to master when his sole duty was that of superintendent. Williams v. Citizens Steamboat Co., 122 App. Div. 188. Negligence of foreman acting as superintendent is negligence of master and the risk and contributory negligence are questions for jury. Onesti v. Central N. E. R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 554. The purpose of the notice under this act; when noticenot sufficient. Barry v. Derby Desk Co., 121 App. Div. 810. Service of notice prerequisite to bringing action. Hope v. Scranton & Lehigh Coal Co., 120 App. Div. 595. Employers’ liability act creates liability for acts of superintendent only when engaged in such service. Hope v. Scranton & Lehigh Coal Co., 120 App. Div. 595. Disregarding of items of negligence in the notice and predicating other items on the trial is a waiver of the terms of the notice. Heffron v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 121 App. Div. 35. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 373 Employers’ Liability Act—Continued Liability arising from superintendence is only where there is actual superintendence. Lowrey v. Huntington L. & P. Co., 121 App. Div. 245. When person in charge of employees is superintendent under . act. Mikos v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R,, 118 App. Div. 536. Employers’ liability act makes no distinction between various classes of employees. Aken v. Barnet & Aufsesser Knitting Co., 118 App. Div. 463. Precise language of act need not be pleaded, it appearing that the action is within the act. Harris v. Baltimore Machine & Elevator Works, 188 N. Y. 141. Employers’ liability act and sufficient allegation of freedom from contributory negligence. Redhead v. Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co., 116 App. Div. 34. Complaint sufficient under act and labor law. Severson v. Hill-Warner Fitch Co., 116 App., Div. 108.. Employers’ liability act has in charge general law as to con- tributory negligence of employee. Chisholm v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 320. Employers’ liability act takes question of assumption of risk from the court and makes it a question for the jury. Kiernan v. Eidlitz, 115 App. Div. 141. Proper to submit to the jury question whether defendant’s em- ployee was performing an act of superintendence. McBride v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 113 App. Div. 821. When contributory negligence an assumption of risk, for the jury. Cadigan v. Glens Falls Gas & Electric Light Co. 112 App. Div. 751. 374 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Employers’ Liability Act—Continued No liability where no duty exists to furnish superintendent as part of corps of fellow servants, or where accident occurs without neglect of fellow servant as to details of work. Abrahamson v. The General Supply & Construction Co., 112 App. Div. 318. Failure to allege and prove a cause of action thereunder. Sutherland v. Ammann, 112 App. Div. 332. Sufficiency of notice. Miller v. Solway Process Co., 108 App. Div. 135. Section 3 making assumption of risk and contributory negligence question of fact. Wilson v. N. Y. Mills, 107 App. Div. 99. Does not relieve from showing freedom from contributory neg- ligence. Wilson v. N. Y. Mills, 107 App. Div. 99. Who is not superintendent within the meaning of the act. Quinlan v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 107 App. Div. 176. What notice under act is sufficient. Hughes v. Russell, 104 App. Div. 144. Master not liable where foreman acts as a fellow servant. Braunberg v. Solomon, 102 App. Div. 330. Objection that complaint did not bring case within the act cannot be as taken on appeal. Braunberg v. Solomon, 102 App. Div. 330. e When cause of action at common law stated, unproven allega- tions of notice under act are surplusage. Holm v. Empire Hardware Co., 102 App. Div. 505. When foreman is superintendent within act although a general superintendent over him. McBride v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 101 App. Div. 448. Typewritten notice sufficient under the act. Hunt v. Dexter Sulphite Pulp and Paper Co., 100 App. Div. 119. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 375 Employers’ Liability Act—Continued Notice by executor may be given within 60 days after appoint- ment. Randall ». Holbrook Contracting Co., 95 App. Div. 336. Measure of liability imposed on employers by it. Bellegard v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 90 App. Div. 577. Question of contributory negligence is for the jury. Sereno v. D. L. & W. R. R., 145 App. Div. 136. A foreman in absence of general superintendent directing the work his negligence chargeable to master. Faith v. N. Y. C. & H. RB. BR. R., 109 App. Div. 222. What constitutes superintendence under act. Quinlan v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 107 App. Div. 176. Plaintiff cannot prove case of negligence not in the notice. Carron v. Standard Refrigerator Co., 188 App. Div. 123. Where jury has not passed on common law liability, judgment cannot be supported on that ground. Logerto v. Central Building Co., 198 N. Y. 390. Insufficient notice. McDonnell v. Robinson Co., 1386 App. Div. 598. Employers’ liability act. Millerick v. Wing, 133 App. Div. 453. Where the action of a servant against the master is not within that act, but at common law. Edgar v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 146 App. Div. 541. The statute makes the servant’s assumption of risk a ques- tion of fact for jury, subject to the court’s power to set aside verdict. Broadbent v. Evening Journal Publishing Co., 147 App. Div. 133. Sufficiency of notice. If complaint has been erroneously dis- missed after defective notice, new trial will be granted, although plaintiff offered to prove a case outside of the notice. Tontiorio v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 147 App. Div. 138. 376 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Employers’ Liability Act—Continued Intended to create a liability where none existed at common law, but not to define the whole measure of the employee’s duty. Tooker v. Fowler & Sellars Co., 147 App. Div. 164. Verification at end of notice is part of notice and signing it is a sufficient signing of the notice. Connor v. Acme Engineering and Contracting Co., 148 App. Div. 518. The notice need not state all the facts establishing the cause of action. Dippolito v. Brown, 148 App. Div. 116. Plaintiff bound to show that he was free from any act contribut- ing to his injury. Pulis v. Stewart, 75 Misc. 268. Engineer Employment of one licensed to run a marine engine to operate a stationary engine. Gillen v. McAllister, 97 App. Div. 310. Equity Where plaintiffs are denied equitable relief damages are not recoverable at special term. Sadlier v. City of New York, 104 App. Div. 82. Estoppel e When master is estopped as to notice. Wolven v. Gabler, 132 App. Div. 45. Evidence Evidence of repairs to implements since accident cannot effect verdict. O’Connor v. Miller, 134 App. Div. 315. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 307 Evidence—Continued Evidence unworthy of belief by contradictory story of witness on different trials. Bang v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 128 App. Div. 134. Where plaintiff’s only evidence is memoranda of plaintiff’s wit- nesses erroneously in evidence, verdict cannot be sustained against defendant. Berkowsky v. N. Y. City R. R., 127 App. Div. 544. If defendant supplies evidence which plaintiff needs to make a case it is to plaintiff’s benefit. Boyce v. N. Y. City R. R., 126 App. Div. 248. ‘ Error for expert to testify ‘it is more dangerous to saw three boards than one.” Carron v. Standard Refrigerator Co., 122 App. Div. 296. Trial judge cannot pass on probability of truth of evidence until after the jury had passed on case. Thayer v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 117 App. Div. 318. Evidence on second trial conforming to suggestion of opinion on appeal from first trial. Ross v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 116 App. Div. 507. When objection to exclusion of evidence of injuries is sufficient. Rudomin »v. Interurban St. R. R., 111 App. Div. 548. Error in exclusion of testimony identifying cause of accident. Miller v. Levering & Garrigues, 144 App. Div. 12. Newly discovered evidence, delay and discovery of. Beers v. West Side R. R. Co., 101 App. Div. 308. Incompetent but material evidence not objected to may be stricken out. Plum v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 91 App. Div. 420. Irrelevant evidence admitted, jury may be instructed to disregard. Plum v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 91 App. Div. 420. 378 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Evidence—Continued When testimony as to looking but not seeing train is incredible as a matter of law. Dolfina v. Erie R. R., 178 N. Y. 1. When testimony is inherently improbable and impeached by physical facts. McKinley v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 91 App. Div. 153. Negative evidence that witness did not hear bell rung or whistle blown, sufficient to submit case to jury. Schuster v. Erie R. R., 145 App. Div. 71. What evidence required by law in action for damages based on negligence. Newton v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 106 App. Div. 415. Incredibility of testimony based on known physical facts. Bayles v. Plumb, 141 App. Div. 786. Where sole charge was failure to guard rollers of machine, error to admit evidence of other dangers. Scott v. International Paper Co., 125 App. Div. 318. Abuse of discretion in the admission of evidence. Gleason v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 99 Ay. Div. 209. Leading questions and suggested answers will not support ver- dict. Boyle v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 58 Mise. 50. Where evidence is without probative force. Causullo v. Lenox Const. Co., 122 App. Div. 672. When evidence not ‘incredible. Austen v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 131 App. Div. 903. Offer of proof: The court having refused to admit any proof, it is immaterial what proof is offered. Tontiorio v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 147 App. Div. 138. Error to allow proof of admissions as to a past event and no part of res gestae. McConnell v. Thomas & Buckley Operating Co., 148 App. Div. 635. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 379 Examination How far employee bound to examine structure to be taken down. Ferrick v. Eidlitze, 195 N. Y. 248. Examination before trial; examination orally should not be al- lowed on order allowing physical examination before trial. Wood v. Hoffman, 121 App. Div. 636. Where defect in pole could be discovered by proper tests or it was improperly supported, defendants liable. Durfield v. City of N. Y., 101 App. Div. 581. Plaintiff may have examination to obtain evidence to prepare for trial and to avoid a defense that the work in which injury oc- curred was done by independent contractor. Berg v. Horne Co., 146 App. Div. 412. Excavation Excavation not nuisance per se in street. Buckley v. City of N. Y., 185 App. Div. 512. Fencing of excavation. Kleinberg v. Schween, 134 App. Div. 493. Failure to furnish explosives to break down embankment is not negligence where not demanded by situation. Russell v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 188 N. Y. 344. Failure to prevent excavation causing land slide. Heffern v. Village of Haverstraw, 143 App. Div. 527. When master not bound to remove embankment or employ workmen to look for slides. Reilley v. Troy Brick Co., 108 App. Div. 108. Exception On motion to dismiss tested on theory of trial of case. Logerto v. Central Building Co., 123 App. Div. 840. 380 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Excessive Force Excessive force. Dwyer v. N. Y. Central R. R., 186 App. Div. 87. Excessive Verdict Excessive verdict for death of child 314 years-old. Barretto ». Moquin Offerman Wells Coal Co., 142 App. Div. 504. Expert Expert opinion is worthless where witness on which it is based is mistaken. Faudington v. Erie R. R., 186 App. Div. 737. Expert workman, failure to instruct. Hammond v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 186 App. Div. 100. Error to exclude expert opinion. Scott v. Nauss Bros. Co., 141 App. Div. 255. Explosion; proper to show by expert, effect of foreign substances, also common means used to prevent explosion. Sticht v. Buffalo Cereal Co., 195 N. Y. 70. Expert testimony, when not sufficient as to tests, to support claim of unsafe machinery. Donaldson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 129 App. Div. 433. Facts which jury may properly find may be assumed in question to expert. ‘ Miehlke v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 488. Expert statement alone as to other construction and no evidence of danger, not proof of negligence. Young v. Mason Stable Co., 193 N. Y. 188. Where expert employed to inspect, reports safe elevator, de- fendant can rely on inspection. Young v. Mason Stable Co., 193 N. Y. 188. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 381 Expert—Continued Expert evidence in behalf of plaintiff based on mathematical calculations and personal experiments is admissible. Watson v, N. Y. Contracting Co., 127 App. Div. 134. Jury may find one cause of death while expert testimony gives another cause. Bower v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corporation, 125 App. Div. 684. When error to permit witness to answer hypothetical questions as to dangerous appliance. Civetti v. American Hatters & Furriers (Corp.), 124 App. Div. 345. Expert testimony proper as to character and strength of ma- terial in scaffold, construction, etc. Burns v. Crow, 123 App. Div. 251. Expert may not testify it is more dangerous to saw three boards than one, question for jury. Carron v. Standard. Refrigerator Co., 122 App. Div. 296. Expert testimony cannot be based on records which should have been excluded as hearsay. Levy v. Mott Iron Works, 143 App. Div. 7. Proper to ask where hooks are usually attached to ceiling. Fish v. Waverly E. L. & Power Co., 189 N. Y. 336. Jury may disregard testimony of medical expert in forming conclusion. Kelly v. Wills, 116 App. Div. 758. His opinion of injury must be based on facts submitted to jury. Leahy v. Gaylord & Hitapenc Co., 117 App. Div. 316. Credibility of expert for jury. Thayer v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 117 App. Div. 318. Expert should be allowed to testify as to usual manner of placing counter poise. Redhead v. Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co., 116 App. Div. 34. 382 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Expert—Continued Expert should be permitted to testify as to custom of placing counter poise on derrick. Redhead v. Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co., 116 App. Div. 34. One qualified as plumber is not qualified as to cause of break in sewer pipe. Epsteine v. Interborough R. T. Co., 52 Misc. 184. Expert cannot testify that a brake in question could be uniformly relied on. Regan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 115 App. Div. 705. Expert cannot give conclusive evidence as to cause of failure of car to stop, based on assumption of defective brake. Regan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 115 App. Div. 705. Expert testimony as to how far fire sparks can be carried. Babbitt v. Erie R. R., 108 App. Div. 74. Qualification of expert must be shown before he testifies. Dolan v. Herring Hall & Marvin Safe Co., 105 App. Div. 366. Expert testimony as to whether construction was proper or not. German American Insurance Co. v. N. Y. Gas & Electric Co., 103 App. Div. 310. Expert may testify as to proper.method: adopted in installing and maintaining wires, etc. German American Insurance Co. v. N. Y. Gas & Electric Co., 103 App. Div. 310. When an expert will be allowed to express opinion on the precise question which jury must determine. Sullivan v. City of Rome, 86 App. Div. 107. When a conclusion depends as much on expert knowledge as does the existence of facts, expert may testify to conclusion. Dittman v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 144 App. Div. 632. Negligence is not to be based on mere evidence of experts who had made no test. Beregszazi v. Kreischer Brick Mfg. Co., 140 App. Div. 155. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 383 Expert—Continued Expert cannot testify that damages are likely to occur or give speculative evidence. Osterhout v. D. L. & W. R. R., 138 App. Div. 625. Questions to expert should be confined to facts assumed to be proven and on which opinion is desired. Cobb v. United Engineering etc. Co., 191 N. Y. 475. Explosion Explosion of steam pipe. Utter v. International Paper Co., 184 App. Div. 806. Explosion, res geste. Kenney v. South Shore Natural Gas & Fuel Co., 134 App. Div. 859. Mere explosion will not establish negligence. O’Doherty v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 184 App. Div. 298. Premature explosion, when not to be foreseen. Baccelli v. North River Stone Co., 183 App. Div. 449. Explosion of dynamite used by sub-contractor, city not liable. Murphy v. City of N. Y., 128 App. Div. 463. Where only test of boiler was hydraulic test, and hammer test impossible, court should eliminate hammer test case charged. Ware v. Ithaca St. R. R. Co., 125 App. Div. 323. Where tests to be made to prevent explosion, question of neg- ligence as to, for the jury. Torgesen v. Schultz, 192 N. Y. 156. For jury to say whether it was negligence for city to authorize display of fireworks near highway. DeAgramonte v. City of Mt. Vernon, 123 App. Div. 717. Ordinance for keeping explosives does not apply to those for im- mediate use. ; Hall v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 488. 384 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES— LAW Explosion—Continued Cannot testify that explosion was caused by long use of boiler, etc. Such testimony a mere guess. O’Doherty v. Postal Te!egraph Cable Co., 113 App. Div. 636. Duty of company to instruct as to explosive quality of oil and danger, and furnish proper appliances and safe place to work. Cooper v. Fidelity Development Co., 146 App. Div. 637. Explanation Exclusion of evidence explaining failure to operate railroad gates. Recktenwald v. Erie R. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 490. Facts Undisputed facts do not necessarily create a question of law. Sharp v. Erie R. R., 184 N. Y. 100. Falls Fall from ladder. Wynn v. Carlin, 135 App. Div. 795. Fall of scaffold. Hammond v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 186 App. Div. 100. Fall to basement in dark passage. Hillyer v. Laight Street Stores Co., 133 App. Div. 125. Fall down elevator shaft. Hillyer v. Laight Street Stores Co., 183 App. Div. 125. Fall on slippery rail, when not approximate cause of injury. Stern v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 193 N. Y. 328. Fall of flour sacks placed before work begun; failure of foreman to warn, negligence. Weinert v. Merchants & Shippers Warehouse Co., 127 App. Div. 826. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 385 Falls—Continued Contractor bound to use care to protect employees of other contractors from falling material. O’Rourke v. Guy B. Waite Co., 125 App. Div. 825. In fall of brick in building construction, there must be proof of source of fall or cause of fall to sustain verdict. Hashagen v. Schafer, 54 Misc. 236. Where evidence insufficient to connect defendant with the cause of fall. Bowden v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, 118 App. Div. 788. Factory Factory act does not relieve employees of assumption of risk. Bushtis v. Catskill Cement Co., 128 App. Div. 780. Fellow Servant Act of fellow servant. Utter v. International Paper Co., 134 App. Div. 806. Fellow servant. McNamee v. Burough Development Co., 134 App. Div. 666. Who are fellow servants. Riccio v. International R. R. Co., 63 Mise. 588. Where owner is charged. with negligence of his servants injuring contractor’s employee, no question of fellow servant arises. Schwartz v. Onward Construction Co., 180 App. Div. 588. Where master knows that servants have by their negligence endangered a fellow servant, it is his duty to take care and see that rules are complied with and work properly done, danger removed. Henry v. Hudson & Manhattan R. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 140. When one fellow servant is acting as superintendent, employer is liable. Anderson v. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 61 Misc. 504. 386 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Fellow Servant—Continued Telegraph operator fellow servant with track employees on railroad. House v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 128 App. Div. 756. Person employed to give signals, but with no power to control car is fellow servant of conductor and not alter ego. Cox v. D. & H. Co., 128 App. Div. 363. At common law foreman and employee are fellow servants. Mahoney v. Cayuga Lake Cement Co., 126 App. Div. 164. In common law action, when pusher in charge of iron rail is a fellow servant and master not liable. Thompson v. Post & McCord, 143 App. Div. 394. When manager of business is not co-employee. Tivnan v. Keahon, 117 App. Div. 50. Fall of cover to chute caused by act of servants. Brust v. Perkins Co., 113 App. Div. 633. When failure of engineer to give signal is negligence of a fellow - servant. Rich v. Pennsylvania R. R., 112 App. Div. 818. No recovery for master’s employment of negligent fellow serv- ant without proof that the facts were known to master. Andrews v. Reinerg, 111 App. Div. 435. Where injury caused, partly by negligence of fellow servant and partly by that of master, negligence of fellow servant does not excuse master. Kelly v. D. L. & W. R.®., 118 App. Div. 432. Fellow servant. Decora v. American Carbide Co., 186 App. Div. 52. Competency of fellow servant. Stewart v. Hinkle Iron Co-, 141 App. Div. 224, Master not liable for negligence of one volunteering his services to his servant whereby another volunteer is injured. Ryan v. Phipps, 146 App. Div. 642. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 387 Fences Covenant to keep fences bounding railroad right of way in re- pair runs with the land. Satterly v. Erie R. R. Co., 1138 App. Div. 462. Covenant to build and maintain fences runs with the land and binds grantee of land. Satterly v. Erie R. R. Co., 1138 App. Div. 462. Duty of railroad to use fences and other protections to keep track clear. Mendizabal v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 89 App. Div. 387. Findings Principals. Hintze v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 140 App. Div. 852. Fires Whether owner of unfenced lot building fire thereon from which child is burned is guilty of negligence is question for jury. Specht v. Waterbury Co.,'70 Misc. 404. Proof of damages by fire from railroad as showing defendant’s negligence. Nichols v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 61 Misc. 195. Land owner liable to immediate neighbor for the spread of fire. McDonough »v. N. Y. C.. & H. R. R. R., 124 App. Div. 38. Rule as to increase of fire loss by cutting hose on track. Phoenix Insurance Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 122 App. Div. 113. Expert testimony as to how far live sparks.can be carried. Babbitt v. Erie R. R., 108 App. Div. 74. Setting fire on adjoining land and permitting spread to plain-. tiff’s land. Phelps v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 48 Misc. 27. Action for damages may be maintained by owner and insurance company contributing to the loss. Jacobs v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 107 App. Div: 134. 388 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Fires—Continued Evidence competent on question of source of fire. Jacobs v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 107 App. Div. 134. Subrogation of insurance company paying loss occasioned by fire. German American Insurance Co. v. N. Y. Gas & Electric Co., 103 App. Div. 310. : Right to clear lands by use of fire. Hitchcock v. Reiley, 44 Misc. 260. Recovery based on fire being direct cause of loss. Hitchcock v. Reiley, 44 Misc. 260. Judicial notice that escape of sparks cannot be entirely prevented. . White». N. Y.C. & H.R. RB. R., 90 App. Div. 356. Fire Escape Failure to provide fire escapes as required by labor law. Maiorca v. Myers, 131 App. Div. 210. Fireworks Liability of contractor in charge of fireworks instead of owner of the premises. Deyo.v. Kingston Consolidated R. R., 94 App. Div. 578. Foreign Corporation Statute as to filing ceftificate has no application to actions of tort. Bischoff v. Automobile. Touring Co., 97 App. Div. 17. Foreign State Action lies by resident of this state for injury sustained in foreign state of which he was resident at the time. Kleps v. Bristol Mfg. Co., 107 App. Div. 488. A. DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 389 Foreign State—Continued Jurisdiction as to action for accident in foreign state. Zeikus v. Florida East Coast R. R. Co., 144 App. Div. 91. Action in N. Y. State for injuries sustained through negligence in a foreign state. Strauss v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 91 App. Div. 583. Foreign Statute Right of action under foreign statute. Johnson v.- Phoenix Bridge Co., 1833 App. Div. 807. Law of place where accident occurred governs. Erjauschek v. Kramer, 141 App. Div. 545. Objection of failure to prove statute must be made on motion to direct verdict. Crissman v. Erie R. R. Co., 123 App. Div. 61. When alleged negligence occurs in. another state and law of that state not proven, common law prevails. Fallon v. Mertz, 110 App. Div. 755. Where cause of action arose on lands of the United States ceded by N. Y. State, laws of the state apply. McCarthy v. Packard Co., 105 App. Div. 436. Foreign statute enacted by N. Y. State construed as interpreted in foreign country. Bellegard v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 90 APP. Div. Br It is proven like any other fact going to make a cause of action. Storrs v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 403. Foreman Assuring of safety of machine. Goldstein v. Werbelovsky, 141 App. Div, 136. When foreman not superintendent. Larson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 134 App. Div. 679. 390 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Foreman—Continued Definition of foreman. Inglese v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 183 App. Div. 198. Whether foreman a superintendent or not under employers’ act, for jury. English v. Milliken Bros., 132 App. Div. 501. No recovery at common law by orders from foreman where no proof that foreman or plaintiff’s fellow servants were incompetent or construction unsafe. Tweed v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 130 App. Div. 231. At common law where foreman told plaintiff to continue use of machine, master not liable, foreman is fellow servant. Evans v. Eastman Kodak Co., 129 App. Div. 768. When negligence of foreman in ordering signal, intervenes be- tween the signal and accident. Boyle v. McNulty Bros., 129 App. Div. 412. If foreman by word or act in failure to point out danger, throws plaintiff off guard, risk not assumed. Dutcher v. Rockland Electric Co., 123 App. Div. 765. If he believed the place safe, acted on such belief with ordinary care and prudence, and caused the removal to be made, defendant not liable under employers’ liability act. Bertolami v. United Engineering & Contracting Co., 120 App. Div. 192. By furnishing competent foreman, master performs his duty and not liable for negligence of foreman in detail of work. Curran v. Manhattan R R. Co., 118 App. Div. 347. Negligence of acting foreman, that of fellow servant. Bannon v. N. Y. C..& H. R. R. R., 112 App. Div. 552. How far a direction of foreman is an excuse for plaintiff’s acts. Date v. N. Y. Glucose Co., 104 App. Div. 207. Effect of promise of foreman to cure defect. Hemstock v. Lackawanna Iron & Steel Co., 98 App. Div. 332. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 391 Foreman—Continued Company not liable for failure of competent foreman to warn of approaching danger. Ryan v. 3rd Ave. R. R., 92 App. Div. 306. When statement to employee to ‘‘never mind looking up”’ does not render principal liable. Vanderhoff v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 88 App. Div. 418. Master not liable for foreman’s representations. Lewis v. Gehlen, 136 App. Div. 855. Mistake of foreman does not render master liable who provides competent foreman and safe appliances. Vogel v. American Bridge Co., 180 N. Y. 373. Foreman’s acts become questions for jury. Blumquist v. Snare & Triest Co., 185 App. Div. 709. Unreasonable orders of foreman is a risk implied by the contract of employment. Manser »v. Astoria Veneer Mills, 146 App. Div. 478. When master not liable to servant for injury caused by error of foreman or the omissions of the foreman’s duty. Dair v. N. Y. & P. R. Steamship Co., 204 N. Y. 341. Forgery Forged drafts paid by bank not negligence on part of bank. Kenney v. Harlem Savings Bank, 61 Misc. 144. Fraud On discovery, party must act promptly. Shaw v. D. L. & W. R. R., 126 App. Div. 210. Party who invites the fraud must bear the loss rather than holder for value. National Exchange Bank of Albany v. Lester, 119 App. Div. 786. 392 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Gas Gas and electricity. Herbert v. Hudson River Electric R. R. Co., 136 App: Div. 107. Explosion of gas on private premises, company must have notice and opportunity to remedy defect. Mowers v. Municipal Gas Co., 142 App. Div. 169. ° Negligence of company not to be inferred from happening of accident. Robinson v. Empire City Subway Co., 53 Misc. 596. Governmental Function <. - - es The conduct of a police department by city.. : Wilcox v. City of Rochester, 190 N. Y. 137. Guards ° Duty to guard employees. - Kozak v. Erie R. R. Co., 185 App. Div. 726. Waiver of right to guard machine may be found by jury. Ostermann v. Ware, 135 App. Div. 119. Failure to guard or repair, question for jury. Stokes v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 184 App. Div. 363. When machine equipped with customary guards, master not liable although might have been safer. another way. Toye v. United Tevenad Boe! Co., 141 App. Div. 332. Proof of guards erected after accident not admissible. Davenport v. Matthews, 130 App. Div. 257. When machinery guards sufficiently comply with labor law. Kirwan v. American Lithographic Co., 124 App. Div. 180. Not negligent to fail to guard block and fall for carrying things, under the labor law. McNeil v. Bottsford-Dickinson Co., 128 App. Div. 544. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW. 393 Guards—Continued Labor law, not to guard at top of shaft or opening from fall but protect those on floor laid up to shaft. McNeil v. Bottsford-Dickinson Co., 128 App. Div. 544. Where by slipping and being caught in machine inspected by authority, guards not used by others, and no claim that it could be guarded, defendant not negligent. Martin v. Walker & Williams Mfg. Co., 128 App. Div. 733. Failure to use guard chains not negligence where no evidence that chains would have prevented accident. Coady v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 856. Where sole charge is failure to guard rollers of machine; error to admit evidence of other dangers. Scott v. International Paper Co., 125 App. Div. 318. When improper for witness to state custom as to guarding ma- chinery in another State. Civetti v. American Hatters & Furriers Corporation, 124 App. Div. 345. Principle governing case of failure to guard machinery. Sullivan v. Schweinler, 142 App. Div. 940. Where negligence based on failure to inspect machinery, error to admit evidence that similar machines were guarded. Martin v. Walker & Williams Mfg. Co., 122 App. Div. 280. Duty to guard machinery regardless of contract relation, under labor law. Poole v. American Linseed Co., 119 App. Div. 136. Removal of guard rail from machine by foreman; liability of master for injury resulting therefrom to employee. Pinsdorf v. Kellogg & Co., 108 App. Div. 209. Failure to guard under labor law. Wittmer v. Fairhurst, 184 App. Div. 305. Where necessity for guards is question for jury, verdict against evidence should be set aside. Campbell v. Kertscher & Co., 146 App. Div. 384. 394 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Guards—Continued Master only required to guard machinery against such accidents as might reasonably be expected to happen. Campbell v. Kertscher & Co., 146 App. Div. 384. When it is practical to guard machinery, the danger from its remaining unguarded should be anticipated. , Scott v. International Paper Co., 204 N. Y. 49. The burden of showing it to be impracticable to guard ma- chinery in that its location removes it from danger, is on the per- son or corporation maintaining it. Scott v. International Paper Co., 204 N. Y. 49. It could not be held as matter of law that master was not bound to guard the saw when similar machines were guarded. Finkle ». Bolton Landing Lumber Co., 148 App. Div. 500. Highways Improper use by abutting owner. Sweet v. Perkins, 196 N. Y. 482. Notice of defect to police officer is notice to city. Parks v. City of N. Y., 111 App. Div. 836. Highways. Wade v. Town of Worcester, 134 App. Div. 51. To make highways reasonably safe. Wade v. Town of Worcester, 134 App. Div. 51. Presumption that railroad was lawfully using highway and not maintaining nuisance.* Hollis v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 128 App. Div. 821. Rule as to one attempting to pass another in highway going in same direction applies to vehicles headed in same direction. Altenkirch v. National Biscuit Co., 127 App. Div. 307. : Allegation of negligence of commissioner implies that he was in a position to act, and failed. Hayner v. Town of Schaghticok, 126 App. Div. 498. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 395 Highways—Continued When railroad not negligent in having trolley pole outside of curb. Lanigan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 125 App. Div. 622. What proof sufficient of defective condition of. McDowell v. City of Auburn, 126 App. Div. 173. Proper to change the rule or custom of the road. Peters v. Cuneo, 123 App. Div. 740. Control of highway by highway commissioner. Schell v. Town of German Flatts, 123 App. Div. 197. When being repaired plaintiff had no right to assume it free from excavations or obstructions. Steinbrenner v. Forney Co., 143 App. Div. 73. Excavation must be so near highway that pedestrian may fall therein, although in the way. Collins v. Decker, 120 App. Div. 645. Proximate cause of injuries received by driver whose horse backed wagon off unguarded approach to bridge. Wallace v. Town of New Albion, 121 App. Div. 66. Person causing obstruction by drawing two vehicles, is bound to use care to warn other users of the street. Young v. Hermann, 119 App. Div. 445. Failure to obey law as to side of road. Mendelson v. VanRensselaer, 118 App. Div. 516. Hoisting engine near curb frightening horse, is not. a nuisance. Munro v. Wells Brothers Co., 116 App. Div. 663. Village not an insurer against accidents. McKone »v. Village of Warsaw, 187 N. Y. 336. Proper to charge that defendant’s driver was not negligent although on wrong side of street if he there conducted himself with care. Dickinson v. Platt, 116 App. Div. 651. 396 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Highways—Continued Where pedestrian failed to look for vehicles and to try to avoid them, he fails to show freedom from contributory negligence. Rosenthal v. United Dressed Beef Co., 52 Misc. 166. Owner of land crossed by public highway may use soil for any purpose not incompatible with public right of -way. Sweet v. Perkins, 115 App. Div. 784. Where spectator is injured witnessing race cannot recover where contest and use of highway was illegal. Johnson v. City of New York, 186 N. Y. 139. Where no surface indications of defect beneath surface of high- way, city not obliged to inspect to discover defect. Farrell v. City of N. Y., 113 App. Div. 687. No duty to inspect to discover possible defect. if properly con- structed. Farrell v. City of N. Y., 113 App. Div. 687. Negligence in failing to keep highway in safe condition border- ing on pond. Brennan v. Trustees of Village of Bath, 143 App. Div. 740. Collapse of structure over side walk erected with city’s consent. raises presumption of negligence. Scheller v. Silbermintz, 50 Misc. 175. When notice of claim for injuries upon highway, sufficient. Kleyle v. City of Oswego, 109 App. Div. 330. Damages accrue to 4butting owner whose entry into factory is impaired. : Schleicher v. City of Mt. Vernon, 107 App. Div. 584. Proof as to light and as to constructive notice of obstructions. Godfrey v. City of New York, 104 App. Div. 357. Testimony in respect to defects not based on observation and - not on measurement. Miller v. City of N. Y., 104 App. Div. 33. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 397 Highways—Continued What time between placing and removal of lantern does not give constructive notice to city of highway defect. McFeeters v. City of N. Y., 102 App. Div. 32. For what hole or defect in city street the city is not liable. Morris v. Interurban St. R. R., 100 App. Div. 295. Liability of contractor to pedestrian injured by a stone thrown by blast. Turner v. Degnon McLean Contracting Co., 99 App. Div. 135. Abutting owners, title passes to street line as actually laid out and used. Donahue v. Keystone Gas Co., 90 App. Div. 386. Failure to guard highway after notice of defect. Cohen v. City of N. Y., 144 App. Div. 678. The law of the road is not such an absolute rule that plaintiff must presume that defendant would pass to the left of road should the right afford better passage. Kalb v. Redwood, 147 App. Div. 77. Hoisting Hoisting elevator. Knickerbocker v. General R. R. Signal Co., 183 App. Div. 787. Horse Leaving horse unhitched not proximate cause of injury. Corcoran v. Kelly, 61 Misc. 323. : Proof of knowledge of owner of viciousness must be given. Corcoran v. Kelly, 61 Mise. 323. Collision of run away horse with car operated in careful manner, railroad not liable. Ellis v. N. Y. City R. R. & Park & Tilford, 127 App. Div. 328. 398 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Hotel Hotel guest has no right to infer that a passage way continues on the same level. : Dailey v. Distler, 115 App. Div. 102. Husband and Wife : Rights of husband on death of wife, without issue, living separate. Austin v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 108 App. Div. 249. Contributory negligence not imputable to wife riding with hus- band. Heater v. D. L. & W. R. R., 90 App. Div. 495. Extent of husband’s recovery for wife’s injuries. Berger v. Content, 47 Misc. 390. Hypothetical Question Where all the facts on which it is based are in evidence, when expert should be allowed to answer. Grunfelder v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 143 App. Div. 89. Icy Platform Icy platform of car. Kemp v. N. Y. Central R. R., 185 App. Div. 773. Identification Identity of contractor; proper to show he worked on certain days. . McCherry v. Snare & Triest Co. & Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 130 App. Div. 241. What sufficiently establishes defendant’s connection with accident where allegations are not denied. Zettel v. Taylor, 128 App. Div. 251. Failure of evidence to identify place or cause of accident. Hayden v. Joline, 137 App. Div. 755. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 399 Identification—Continued Complaint properly dismissed where no proof of identification of defendant, railroad causing injury. Meschneck v. Brooklyn, Queens County & 8. R. R. Co., 125 App. Div. 265. Improbability Improbability of statement, evidence of not looking. O’Reilly v. Davis, 136 App. Div. 386. Incompetent Incompetent person; failure to testify as to use of faculties when crossing street will not prevent recovery. Cherbuliez v. Parsons, 59 Misc. 613. Incompetent evidence; incompetent evidence judgment when reversed because of admission of. Rose v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. & N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 108 App. Div. 206. Incredibility Incredibility of testimony on the part of plaintiff. Bayles v. Plumb, 141 App. Div. 786. Independent Contractor Independent contractor. Roper v. Ulster Co. Agricultural Society, 186 App. Div. 97. Owner not liable to employee of independent contractors. Silverman ». Binder, 180 App. Div. 581. Owner not liable to employee of contractor on one part of work for negligence of employees of contractors on other work, unless guilty of active negligence. Silverman v. Binder, 130 App. Div. 581. Recovery cannot be had against owner of premises where the in- juries resulted from acts of independent contractor. Goldstein v. Wolkenburg, 54 Misc. 545. 400 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Independent Contractor—Continued Who are independent contractors. Goldstein v. Wolkenburg, 54 Mise. 545. Not liable for fall of brick from scaffold without proof of notice of likelihood of injury from such a fall. Choyce v. Hopper & Son, 120 App. Div. 177. Infant When certificate of birth excluded. Lee v. Sterling Silk Mfg. Co., 134 App. Div. 123. Whether employer believed decedent to be of lawful age or gave instructions, for jury. Kircher v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 184 App. Div. 144. Inference Negligence not inferred by nature of accident. Nichols v. Searle Mfg. Co., 184 App. Div. 62. Every inference must stand on clear direct evidence, not on some other inference or presumption. Lamb v. Union R. R. Co., 195 N. Y. 260. If party looked up and down street, it is inferred he saw the car. Boyce v. N. Y. City R. R., 126 App. Div. 248. A finding may be based on evidence from which an inference may be drawn, although no direct evidence given. Zucker v. Whitridge, 143 App. Div. 191. Evidence of condition of wires previous to accident inferred from subsequent condition. Kennealy v. Westchester R. R., 86 App. Div. 293. Sufficient if plaintiff proves facts from which it may. be inferred a machine was defective. Babbitt v. Erie R. R., 108 App. Div. 74. A DIGEST OF: NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW j 401 Injuries Injury to child by dangerous weapon left in open place. Ship v. Fridenburg, 132 App. Div. 782. Death of animal must be shown to have been caused by the collision. Nocera v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 1138 App. Div. 419. Where fall and subsequent injury by collision are separate in time, question of cause for jury. Gray v. Weir, 113 App. Div. 479. Error to permit physician to speculate as to result of injuries. Gleason v. Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 884. What evidence fails to establish that physical injury was done to plaintiff. Newton v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R.-R., 106 App. Div. 415. Evidence that plaintiff's condition might have been caused by injury or that injury was sufficient to cause it, is insufficient. Raynor v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 106 App. Div. 449. A disease, not the necessary or natural result of injury alleged, must be pleaded specifically. Brown v. Manhattan R. R., 105 App. Div. 395. Allowing plaintiff to give to jury exhibition walk. Harvey v. Fargo, 99 App. Div. 599. When complaint must specifically allege a disease to justify proof of it, in consequence of injury. Wilkins v. Nassau Newspaper Delivery Express Co., 98 App. Div. 130. Proof of injury to brain under allegation of injury to head, body, limbs and permanently injured. Fleming v. Tuttle, 98 App. Div. 222. Proof of impaired sight and hearing under allegation of bruised and injured. Graham v. Bauland Co., 97 App. Div. 141. 402 - A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Injuries—Continued Question whether an injury would be likely to produce a con- dition not admissible. Higgins v. United Traction Co., 96 App. Div. 69. A disease must be necessarily and directly caused by the injury. Lockwood v. Troy City R. R., 92 App. Div. 112. Failure to show injuries resulting from accident. DesMoineaux v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 848. Question for jury as to what caused death. McCahill ». N, Y. Transportation Co., 135 App. Div. 322. Instructions Instructions to servant. Decora v. American Carbide Co., 186 App. Div. 52. Instructions as to dangers, question for the jury. Makoski v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 136 App. Div. 110. Failure to obey instructions. Ripp v. Fuchs, 129 App. Div. 321. Negligence in instructing plaintiff and not finishing instructions at time of accident. Greco v. Pratt Chuck Co., 127 App. Div. 798. Person chosen to instruct plaintiff in dangerous machine who negligently starts same before instructions completed, master liable. Greco v. Pratt Chuck Co., 127 App. Div. 798. Person hiring inexperienced person bound to instruct them as to dangerous machine. ° Greco v. Pratt Chuck Co., 127 App. Div. 798. Negligence not based on failure to instruct when the danger is obvious. Bovi v. Hess, 123 App. Div. 389. - -Rule that master must instruct, immaterial where servant fami- liar with work, machine and danger. Carron v. Standard Refrigerator.Co., 122 App. Div. 296. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 403 Instructions—Continued Master not relieved of liability by delegation to another of duty to instruct servant as to dangerous machine. Tivnan v. Keahon, 117 App. Div. 50. Where plaintiff had no knowledge of danger, and no instructions except a general warning for care. Smith v. Manhattan R. R., 112 App. Div. 202. Knowledge of danger excuses failure to instruct. Lynch v. Shanley Co., 112 App. Div. 305. Insurance Illegal proof of insurance of defendant against accidents. Chernick v. Independent American Ice Cream Co., 66 Misc. 177. Bringing fact of insurance before jury, ground for reversal. Hordern v. Salvation Army, 124 App. Div. 674. Evidence of insurance requiring reversal. Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479. Rule as to increase of fire loss by cutting hose on track. Phoenix Insurance Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 122 App. Div. 113. What fact does not call a jury’s attention to fact that insurance company was defending the action. Shane v. National Biscuit Co., 102 App. Div. 188. What inquiry of jurors as to their interest in insurance corpora- tions is proper. Grant v. National Railway Spring Co., 100 App. Div. 234. Proper to interrogate juror as to interest in insurance against accident. O’Dell v. Genesee Sons Construction Co., 145 App. Div. 125. 404 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Inspection Duty as to inspection in elevator case. Haigh v. Edelmeyer & Morgan Hod Elevator Co., 186 App. Div. 484. Inspection. Cooper v, Jordan, 135 App. Div. 718. Duty of inspection. LaDuke v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 186 App. Div. 136. Inspection. Kirby v. Montgomery Bros. Co., 197 N. Y. 27. Failure to inspect telephone. Griffin v. N. Y. Telephone Co., 141 App. Div. 1. Contributory negligence of inspection. Riggs v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 184 App. Div. 672. Conditions making it impossible to inspect. Scott v. Nauss Brothers Co., 141 App. Div. 255. Rule as to inspection. Scott v. Nauss Bros. Co., 141 App. Div. 255. Master’s duty to inspect cannot be delegated. Griffin v. Flank, 132 App. Div. 334. Competent employee to inspect does not relieve liability. Griffin v. Flank, 132 App. Div. 334. When discovery can be made by inspection. Lusk v. Peck, 1382 Appe Div. 426. Duty to inspect, guard and light dangerous places. Farley v. White Engineering Co., 131 App. Div. 228. Inspection of scaffold. Tiedjen v. Nat. Elevator Co., 130 App. Div. 504. Duty to inspect appliances to discover defects... Wilson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 129 App. Div. 125. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 405 Inspection—Continued Duty of servant to inspect and exercise caution in dangerous. places. Johnston v. Syracuse Lighting Co., 193 N. Y. 592. Where expert employed to inspect, reported elevator safe, de- fendant could rely on inspection by expert. Young v. Mason Stable Co., 193 N. Y. 188. Where plaintiff is to inspect work, he is not guilty of con- tributory negligence as a matter of law in stepping into tank of water in cellar where no warning given; question for jury. Ward »v. Hill, 125 App. Div. 587. Master liable for negligence of servant in inspecting machinery. Dittman v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.,.125 App. Div. 691. When inspection not a detail of work. Dittman v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 125 App. Div. 691. Where negligence based on failure to inspect machinery, error to prove that similar machines were guarded. Martin v. Walker & Williams Mfg. Co., 122 App. Div. 280. Where defect is not to be anticipated, negligence is for the jury. Powers v. City of N. Y., 121 App. Div. 433. Wooden awning existing in city so long as to become rotten, jury to say whether defendant was negligent from failure to inspect. Mansfield v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 199. Person selling explosive bottle under obligation to inspect the same. Bruckel v. Milhau’s Son, 116 App. Div. 832. Duty of selling agent to inspect goods. Bruckel v. Milhau’s Son, 116 App. Div. 832. Where no power to inspect or regulate work given, city not liable for injuries from explosion. Carpenter v. City of N. Y., 115 App. Div. 552. 406 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Inspection—Continued Duty and form of inspection. Weir v. Union R. R. Co. of N. Y. City, 112 App. Div. 109. Charge as to duty to adopt all known methods of inspection. Starer v. Stern, 100 App. Div. 393. Liability of master where break was due to dry rot not apparent on surface. Meehan »v. Atlas Safe Moving Co., 94 App. Div. 306. Duty of inspection imposed on master. Franck v. American Tarter Co., 91 App. Div. 571. Expert testimony as to what reasonable inspection would dis- close. Dittman v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 87 App. Div. 68. Delegation of power of. Dittman v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 87 App. Div. 68. What inspection insufficient. Smith v. N. Y. Chicago & St. Lawrence R. R., 86 App. Div. 188. Continuous duty of inspection cannot be delegated and servant is vice principal of master. McGlynn v. Pa. Steel Co., 144 App. Div. 343. Collapse occurring by reason of failure to inspect. Vogemann v. American Dock & Trust Co., 131 App. Div. 216. Janitor a When owner liable for acts of persons employed by janitor to do his work. Ellefson v. Singer, 132 App. Div. 89. Joinder Joinder of common law action and employer’s liability action. Acardo v. N. Y. Contracting and Trucking Co., 116 App. Div. 793. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 407 Joint Tort Feasors ‘A recovery must be set aside or sustained as to all, cannot be set aside as to one and not the others. Bamberg v. International R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 1. Two persons jointly negligent as to third person, he may recover general verdict against both. Bamberg v. International R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 1. ” Judge On trial before justice it is assumed that he passed upon both law and facts. Miller v. International R. R., 52 Misc. 344. Misstatement of evidence in the charge error. Agresta v. Stevenson, 112 App. Div. 367. Judgment Judgment in conformity with pleading. Walsh v. Nassau Electric R. R., 133 App. Div. 144. Motion for leave to renew after bill of particulars and examina- tion. Ship v. Fridenburg, 132 App. Div. 782. Motion for judgment on pleadings is not governed by same rules as one on ground that pleading is frivolous. Olsen v. Singers Mfg. Co., 143 App. Div. 142. Failure to move for judgment is waiver of objection to submit case to jury. Grogan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 107 App. Div. 254. Judgment not in accordance with pleadings. Brodsky v. Kronenberg, 145 App. Div. 594. A judgment is not on the merits unless the court is authorized to consider the merits. Kaplan v. Friedman Construction Co., 148 App. Div. 14. 408 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Judicial Decision Judicial decision determined by facts stated in opinion, not by those on record. Moriarty v. City of New York, 132 App. Div. 10. Judicial Notice Court may take judicial notice of slope in side walk. Owen v. City of N. Y., 141 App. Div. 217. Jury Negligence of parties is for jury to determine. Flanagan v. Carlin Construction Co., 134 App. Div. 236. Injury to passenger, question for jury. Olopp v. Interborough R. T. Co., 69 Misc. 595. Jury need not be instructed as to obvious facts. Ozogar v. Pierce Butler & Pierce Mfg. Co., 184 App. Div. 800. Inferences and conclusions are for jury. Hallett ». Liebmanns Sons Brewing Co., 129 App. Div. 617. Jury are to determine liability of defendant on the facts shown under the law. Kelly v. City of N. Y., 129 App. Div. 658. Where attention of jurors is distracted from the real issue. Becker v. Interborough R. T. Co., 128 App. Div. 455. If jury does not agree court may pass on motion for non-suit. Specht v. Waterbury Co., 70 Misc. 404. Where cause submitted on erroneous theory. Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479. Where verdict based on false estimate of evidence induced by leading questions. Boyle v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 58 Mise. 50. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 409 Jury—Continued Jury not permitted to speculate as to manner in which snow was. piled on track. Gibbons v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 122 App. Div. 87. Error for Court to read statute to jury when not applicable to the premises. Robinson v. Crimmins, 120 App. Div. 250. Erroneous submission to jury of failure to make rules without proof that such rules might have prevented accident. Durkos v. Chelsea Jute Mills, 120 App. Div. 561. Jury need not determine cause of death scientifically and may disregard expert opinion. Kelly v. Wills, 116 App. Div. 758. Question based on assumption that defendant is a trust, preju- dices jury. Crammond »v. International Paper Co., 116 App. Div. 39. Jury may reject evidence of party interested whose testimony differs from that given on former trial. Carlin v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. R. Co., 71 Mise. 521. When jury may infer explosion was caused from dampness in mold. Haslin v. National Foundry Co., 106 App. Div. 152. When errors in admission of evidence not cured by direction to disregard evidence. Harkins v. Queen Insurance Co., 106 App. Div. 170. Failure to move for judgment is waiver of objection to submit to jury. Grogan v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 107 App. Div. 254. A case must be submitted to the jury even when verdict for plaintiff will be set aside. Lewis v. Erie R. R., 105 App. Div. 292. 410 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Jury—Continued If any evidence given to establish negligence jury should be so instructed. Jones v. Kroder & Reubel Co., 95 App. Div. 140. Verdict based on testimony of father as to warning given child if believed is warranty. Weintraub v. Guilfoyle, 89 App. Div. 328. Case must be submitted where conflicting evidence fairly pre- sents question of fact for jury’s determination. Lewis v. Erie R. R., 105 App. Div. 292. Knowledge A matter of common knowledge. Smith v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 129 App. Div. 635. Knowledge is information and information knowledge; not con- fined to what has been present and observed. Davenport v. Prentice, 126 App. Div. 451. Labor Law Where on trial plaintiff does not rely on the statute he cannot on appeal claim violation of statute. Mulligan v. McDonald, 135 App. Div. 536. Labor law and safe labor. Seredinski v. Balaban, 136 App. Div. 20. Jury may find waiver of right to have machinery guarded. Ostermann v. Ware, 135 App. Div. 119. Hoisting materials relates to construction of buildings. Lockhart v. Hoffman, 197 N. Y. 331. Duty to guard machinery for children’s protection. Kirwan v. American Lithographic Co., 197 N. Y. 413. When fall from scaffold is sufficient evidence of negligence. Huston v. Dobson, 138 App. Div. 810. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 411. Labor Law—Continued Person serving notice entitled to the benefits of the act relating to assumption of risk. Proctor v. Rockville Center Milling & Construction Co., 141 App. Div. 900. Negligence in failing to plank over floor beams. Schramme v. Lewinson, 126 App. Div. 279. Master charged with notice of dangerous methods, when in viola- tion of labor law. Flanagan v. Carlin Construction Co., 134 App. Div. 236. Providing ways. Simpson v. Interborough R. T. Co., 141 App. Div. 148. Employment of infant contrary to labor law, negligence. Lee v. Sterling Silk Mfg. Co., 184 App. Div. 123. Guarding openings. McHugh v. Grand Central Building & Construction Co., 133 App. Div. 100. Modifying common law. Gruner v. The Texas Co., 183 App. Div. 413. Any defects at common law not consistent with labor law can be invoked. Gombert v. McKay, 201 N. Y. 27. Duty to furnish safe scaffold. Tiedjen v. National Elevator Co., 141 App. Div. 529. Servant injured by breaking scaffold, master presumed to be negligent. : Lorenzo v. Faillace, 132 App. Div. 108. Breaking of scaffold through negligence of fellow servant, master not liable. Lorenzo v. Faillace, 182 App. Div. 103. What is scaffold under labor law. Convey v. Finn, 130 App. Div. 440. 412 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Labor Law—Continued When recovery under labor law not sustained. Tiedjen v. National Elevator Co., 130 App. Div. 504. Whether scaffold complied with, question of fact. Connolly v. Peterson, 62 Misc. 624. Liability from negligence of master employing a child. Koester v. Rochester Candy Works, 194 N. Y. 92. When party not a contractor under law or liable for failure to guard. Anderson v. Pelham Hod Elevator Co., etc., 129 App. Div. 639. A block and a fall to carry things is not an elevator under labor law. McNeil v. Bottsford-Dickinson Co., 128 App. Div. 544. Labor law not to protect unloading material at top of shaft, from fall, but those working on floor laid up to shaft. McNeil v. Bottsford-Dickinson Co., 128 App. Div. 544. Plank bridge opening in floor is a scaffold. Warren v. Post & McCord, 128 App. Div. 572. Failure of master to guard circular saw as required by act, servant entitled, on serving notice to benefits of the act. Proctor v. Rockville Center Milling & Construction Co., 141 App. Div. 900. A person serving notice entitled to the benefits of the act relat- ing to assumption of risk. Proctor v. Rockville Center Milling & Construction Co., 141 App. Div. 900. Master does not insure ne working on a scaffold. Petterson v. Rahtjen’s American Composition Co., 127 App. Div. 32. Section 18 applies to scaffold 12 feet high, made with horse and planks. Tracey v. Williams, 127 App. Div. 126. Master not liable for injury to employee from use of simple instrument. Kelly v. National Starch Co., 142 App. Div. 286. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 413 Labor Law—Continued Employment of child under 14 on power machine sufficient evidence for jury to find verdict for parent. Danaher v. American Mfg. Co., 126 App. Div. 385. Master must adopt safe, suitable and proper method for secur- ing scaffold and duty cannot be delegated. Anderson v. Milliken Brothers, 123 App. Div. 614. Labor law has not changed liability act to the effect that whether employee assumed risk of employment, was a question of fact. Gallo v. Dunn, 71 Misc. 132. Damages to be guarded against are those a reasonable prudent person would have anticipated. King v. Reid, 124 App. Div. 121. Child over 14 years, injury due to contributory negligence, cer- tificate immaterial. Fortune v. Hall, 122 App. Div. 250. Legal principles governing failure to guard machinery under law. : Sullivan v. Schweinler, 142 App. Div. 940. Where negligence based on failure to inspect, error to admit evidence of failure to guard machinery. Martin v. Walker & Williams Mfg. Co., 122 App. Div. 280. Jury may consider fact on question of negligence, that minor was employed without certificate required by labor law. Kenyon v. Sanford Mfg. Co., 119 App. Div. 570. When a structure is not within Section 18 of the law. Williams v. 1st National Bank of Utica, 118 App. Div. 555. Master permitting use of elevator of adjoining building for seaffold, does not furnish a scaffold within the meaning of labor law. Croce v. Buckley, 115 App. Div. 354. 414 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Labor Law—Continued An action under labor law is governed by the rules of common law. Lee v. Sterling Silk Mfg. Co., 115 App. Div. 589. Proof of violation of statute is evidence of negligence, but not in every case such conclusive proof as to exclude proof absolving defendant. Lee v. Sterling Silk Mfg. Co., 115 App. Div. 589. When scaffold used daily for washing ceiling not a scaffold within meaning of the law. Stokes v. N. Y. Life Insurance Co., 112 App. Div. 77. What proof of negligence and absence of contributory negligence sufficient. Scialo v. Steffens, 105 App. Div. 592. What does not’ violate provision against employment of lad under 16 at machinery. Scialo v. Steffens, 105 App. Div. 592. When railroad liable to employee for injury resulting from working over time. , Pelin v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 102 App. Div. 71. Labor law applies to scaffolding in certain specific cases. Schapp v. Bloomer, 181 N. Y. 125. Employment of child under 16 contributory negligence not. imputed to child. Lowry v. Anderson Co.,6 App. Div. 465. As to operating dangerous machinery; when not applicable. Lowry v. Anderson Co., 96 App. Div. 465. Effect of employing child under 14 and one between 14 and 16. Sitts v. Waiontha Knitting Co., 94 App. Div. 38. Burden of proving non-filing of certificate is on plaintiff. Sitts v. Waiontha Knitting Co., 94 App. Div. 38. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 415 Labor Law—Continued What action is based on a lawful and not on unlawful employment. Sitts v. Waiontha Knitting Co., 94 App. Div. 38. Boiler is not a structure within section 18 of the labor law. Connley v. Lackawanna Iron & Steel Co., 94 App. Div. 149. Violation of labor law by failure to adjust guard on machine. Klein v. Garvey, 94 App. Div. 183. The dangers which are required to be protected against. Kimmerle v. Carey Printing Co., 144 App. Div. 714. Under Section 20 question of defendant’s negligence and con- tributory negligence for the jury; assumption of risk for j jury. Kiernan v. Eidlitz, 109 App. Div. 726. Under Section 81 the duty imposed by labor law cannot be evaded by employing a foreman and overseer, to take charge of work. Pinsdorf v. Kellogg & Co., 108 App. Div. 209. Under Section 21 the meaning of the phrase, ‘contractors or owners.” Rooney v. Brogan Construction Co., 107 App. Div. 258. Failure to furnish safe place or safe scaffold for work. Caddy »v. Interborough R. T. Co., 195 N. Y. 415. Section 81. Notwithstanding this section, machinery may be so located that as matter of law, no guard required. Campbell v. Kertscher & Co., 146 App. Div. 384. Master having complied with the labor law he is not bound to anticipate that the foreman would order plaintiff to do things in- consistent with proper work. Manser v. Astoria Veneer Mills, 146 App. Div. 478. Section 202 does not relieve the employee of the burden of show- ing his freedom from contributory negligence and essential elements of his case. Fitzgerald v. Newton Falls Paper Co., 204 N. Y. 184. 416 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Labor Law—Continued Sections 202 and 202a must be read together. Section 202a does not relate merely to practice and procedure, but affects positive rights. Banchetti v. Williams & Co., 75 Misc. 262. Ladder Falling of ladder. Seredinski v. Balaban, 136 App. Div. 20. Land Duty of owner inviting public to enter to maintain a reasonably safe condition. Roth v. Feld Co., 59 Mise. 214. Reasonable care to be exercised with appliances to avoid injury on adjoining premises. Weitzmann v. Barber Asphalt Co., 190 N. Y. 452. Owner is only liable for wanton injury to licensee. Fox v. Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co., 204 N. Y. 240. Landlord and Tenant Owner leasing to several tenants who use elevator of defendant, is liable to employee of tenant for injury. Sciolaro v. Asch, 198 N. Y. 77. Visitor to tenant. Kane v. Williams, 140 App. Div. 857. Not liable for injury to child of tenant. Strobel v. Liebmann, 197 N. Y. 348. Failure to light hall way. Donnelly v. Katz, 133 App. Div. 905. Injury to child falling in cellar. Strobel v. Liebmann, 133 App. Div. 911. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 417 Landlord and Tenant—Continued Landlord’s liability for fall of seating structure. Lusk v. Peck, 1382 App. Div. 426. Reserving right to make repairs, bound to keep side walk in repair, and liable for injuries. .Gelof v. Morgenroth et al., 130 App. Div. 17. Damage from leakage on floor above. Love v. Globe Hat Mfg. Co., 129 App. Div. 621. Tenants using elevator, the lessor liable to servants of tenant for negligence of operator. Sciolaro v. Asch, 129 App. Div. 86. Liable for fall of stair way not kept in repair although not in- cluded in lease. Peters v. Kelley, 129 App. Div. 290. Owner not chargeable with knowledge of methods adopted by lessee in use of elevator. Bradford v. Banker Brothers Co., 122 App. Div. 523. Without statutory requirement no duty devolves on landlord to light a hallway. Robinson uv. Crimmins, 120 App. Div. 250. Landlord under no obligation to provide hooks to fasten door, when open. TenBroeck v. Deinhardt, 120 App. Div. 473. A wooden box may be a mechanical contrivance under this law. Michael v. Standard Concrete Steel Co., 55 Misc. 255. A person contracting with tenant for maintenance of sign on leased premises liable for injuries resulting from its fall. Filippo v. American Bill Posting Co., 188 N. Y. 514. Where nuisance is established there can be no recovery against tenant based on his negligence. Opper v. Davega, 116 App. Div. 268. 418 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Landlord and Tenant—Continued Landlord liable for injuries from fall of pole holding clothes line. Hanselman v. Broad, 113 App. Div. 447. Owner must use reasonable care to keep roof in safe condition. Schwartz v. Monday, 49 Misc. 527. When defendant not liable for injuries to lessee from fall of ceiling. Walker v. Gleason, 109 App. Div. 791. Fall of ceiling; contributory negligence not shown by use of room where ceiling sags. Frank v. Simon, 109 App. Div. 38. Duty of tenant to make repairs required by building depart- ment of New York. Markham ». Stevenson Brewing Co., 104 App. Div. 420. Duty of landlord to advise tenant of defects in building. Smith v. Donnelly, 93 App. Div. 569. Sufficiency of allegation in complaint of landlord’s negligence. Wesener v. Smith, 89 App. Div. 211. Lessee liable after agreement to repair, to his employee injured. Leaux v. City of N. Y., 87 App. Div. 405. Where tenant assumes obligations to make repairs and landlord not liable. Leaux v. City of N. Y., 87 App. Div. 405. Rule of law as to falling on unlighted stairway. Lather v. Bammann, 122 App. Div. 13. Liability of lessee covenanting to keep property in repair. Devine v. National Wall Paper Co., 95 App. Div. 194. Where tenant and sub-tenant assume duty of keeping elevator in repair, landlord not liable to servant of sub-tenant for injuries by fall of elevator in absence of proof that it was not in good order. McCallum v. Dodge, 148 App. Div. 86. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 419 Language Employers’ liability because of operator’s imperfect knowledge of English inducing his act. Austin v. Fisher Tanning Co., 96 App. Div. 550. Laws Conflict of laws. Johnson v. Phoenix Bridge Co., 133 App. Div. 807. License When permission is distinct from invitation to enter premises. Forbrick v. General Electric Co., 45 Misc. 452. Where city has used ground so as to imply a license from owner, it is liable for damages from its agents’ acts. Brennan v. City of Albany, 143 App. Div. 752. Implied license as to crossing. Smetanka v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 123 App. Div. 323. Long use of cellar way from street, presumes that it is under city license. Opper v. Hellinger, 116 App. Div. 261. Licensee Injury to applicant for work on premises. McDonough ». James Reiley Repair & Supply Co., 47 Misc. 109. When city not liable for injuries caused by licensee. DeAgremonte v. City of Mt. Vernon, 112 App. Div. 291. An electric company owed no active duty to keep wires properly insulated at point where accident occurred. Mangan v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 50 Misc. 388. Licensee bound to use particular care while on premises. Wilkins v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 52 Misc. 166. 420 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Licensee—Continued Licensee entering premises is presumed to have assumed the ordinary risks of the place. Wilkins v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 52 Misc. 166. Mere licensee takes the risk of accident in going on premises in their present condition. Stern v. Miller, 60 Misc. 103. When janitor injured while in charge of building is not licensee. Schollhamer v. Hamburger, 63 Misc. 309. Where complaint charging as licensee, has no allegation of will- ful injury it will not defeat recovery where no objection raised. Neuberger v. L. I. R. R. Co., 131 App. Div. 885. No active duty of vigilance imposed on defendant for protection of licensee. Middleton v. Reutler, 141 App. Div. 517. Licensee. Weiner v. Scherrer, 64 Misc. 82. Owner owes no duty towards licensee except doing no affirma- tive injury. Haack v. Brooklyn Labor Lyceum Association, 44 Misc. 273. Life Not negligent to attempt to save life of another. O’Brien v. Erie R. R., 489 App. Div. 291. Value of estimated by character, qualities, capacity, age, sex, circumstances and conditions. Schramme v. Lewinson, 126 App. Div. 279. Lighting Negligence in lighting building is question for jury. Bausert v. Thompson Starrett Go., 126 App. Div. 332. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 421 Limitations Limitation of action suspended by infancy, survives, where ad- ministrator dies before suit, to a successor. Conway v. N. Y. City, 139 App. Div. 446. Limitation of actions. Johnson v. Phoenix Bridge Co., 1383 App. Div. 807. Looking and Listening Plaintiff not guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law in failing to look and listen before crossing track. Palmer v. Larchmont Horse R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 341. Failure to look a second time before crossing track. Binder v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 51 Misc. 655. Where there is evidence of looking before reaching obstruction of view, but no evidence of looking after passing obstruction, there is no evidence of freedom from contributory negligence. Ward v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 115 App. Div. 104. Where no evidence that plaintiff tried to avoid vehicles, he fails to show freedom from contributory negligence. Wilkins v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 52 Misc. 166. Delegation of driver’s duty to watch for approaching car. Ciarcia v. Westchester Electric R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 899. Error to charge there was no hard and fast rule about looking when crossing track. Peterson v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 210. Looking and listening necessary to recover in crossing track. Robinson v. Crosstown St. R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 543. Contributory negligence from failure to look while crossing street railroad track. Ayres v. 42nd St. M. & St. Nicholas Ave. R. R., 54 Mise. 639. Not necessarily error to receive evidence as to decedent’s habit of using care in crossing track. Zucker v. Whitridge, 143 App. Div. 191. 422 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Looking and Listening—Continued A finding that decedent looked may be based on evidence from which inference may be drawn, although no direct proof of looking. Zucker v. Whitridge, 143 App. Div. 191. When failure to look or listen for approaching car is negligence as a matter of law. Volcsko v. Interurban St. R. R., 190 N. Y. 206. Having looked both ways, no warning of approaching car, plaintiff not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Murphy »v. Interurban St. R. R., 56 Misc. 598. Negligence as matter of law for failure to look in crossing track. Baxter v. Auburn & Syracuse Electric R. R. Co., 190 N. Y. 439. Failure to look, automobile accident. O’Reilley v. Davis, 186 App. Div. 386. Machinery Question as to danger from machinery is for jury. Gallenkamp v. Garvin Machine Co., 91 App. Div. 141. What constitutes assisting in operation of machinery. Gallenkamp v. Garvin Machine Co., 91 App. Div. 141. When repairer of machinery is co-employee of one using it. Koszlowski v. American Locomotive Co., 96 App. Div. 40. Removal of guard rail from machine by foreman. Pinsdorf v. Kellogg & Co., 108 App. Div. 209. Defective, in that cog wheels are thrown into gear by a jar. Hazzard v. State of New York, 108 App. Div. 119. When risk not obvious or assumed, no instructions. Makin v. Pettebone Cataract Paper Co., 111 App. Div. 726. A defect in adjustment of parts of machinery constitutes a defect in machinery. Swarts v. Wilson Mfg. Co., 115 App. Div. 739. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 423 Machinery—Continued Assumption of risk by employee in making repairs while ma- chinery in motion. Roche v. India Rubber, etc., Co., 115 App. Div. 582. Weight of evidence as to safety of machinery. Sticht v. Buffalo Cereal Co., 116 App. Div. 632. Master not relieved of liability by delegating his duty of instruct- ing employee as to danger of machinery, to another. Tivnan v. Keahon, 117 App. Div. 50. Duty to guard may be waived by servant. Travis v. Haan, 119 App. Div. 138. Question of waiver of duty to guard and assumption of risk are for jury under labor law. Travis v. Haan, 119 App. Div. 138. Danger of machinery not obvious to boy 19 years of age just commencing work with no instructions. Smith v. Wessel Mfg. Co., 117 App. Div. 834. Duty to guard machinery although no contract relation. Poole v. American Linseed Co., 119 App. Div. 136. Negligence in not guarding knives of machine and assumption of risk are for the jury. Neumeiler v. Central Brewing Co. of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 101. No recovery where there is no evidence that fellow servant was not competent, or was negligent in tempering the piece, or that appliance was not of proper quality. Hohl v. Hewitt Motor Co., 121 App. Div. 866. Cannot be anticipated that servant would unnecessarily approach knives of machine. McGrath v. Fibre Conduit Co., 122 App. Div. 424. Legal principle governing failure to guard machinery. Sullivan v. Schweinler, 142 App. Div. 940. ~ 424 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—EAW Machinery—Continued Only dangers that a prudent person would anticipate are to be guarded against. King v. Reid, 124 App. Div. 121. Rule of liability as to machinery does not apply to ladders. Smith v. Green Fuel Economizer Co., 123 App. Div. 672. Where foreman directs use of available machinery master liable for defect. Huber v. Whale Creek Iron Works, 125 App. Div. 184. Master liable for negligence of servant in inspecting machinery. Dittman v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 125 App. Div. 691. Where defect called to attention of foreman and he promised to repair, contributory negligence for jury. Zajdack v. Lisbon Falls Fibre Co., 127 App. Div. 206. A derrick used in same place for months is permanent structure and master liable for construction and maintenance. Watson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 127 App. Div. 134. Where defective machine is reported to master, later declared repaired and later out of order and injury received, prima facie case of negligence. Staskowski v. Standard Oil Co., 127 App. Div. 17. Where machine is a permanent structure duty of master to see that it is reasonably safe; defective bolt. Porter v. American Bridge Co., 127 App. Div. 1. Where crane is constantly travelling over defendant’s place of 5 a : é . work, defendant’s negligence is for the jury. Browne v. Pratt & Letchworth Co., 127 App. Div. 859. No recovery if rate of speed made it impossible to operate clutch. Burke v. International Paper Co., 128 App. Div. 680. Where car regularly inspected, no indications of strain, testi- mony of expert as to proper tests will not support claim of unsafe machinery. Donaldson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 129 App. Div. 433. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 425 Machinery—Continued Duty to furnish suitable machinery and keep it in repair. Wilson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 129 App. Div. 125. After knowledge of defect the risk is assumed. Evans v. Eastman Kodak Co., 129 App. Div. 768. Purchaser of machine fully equipped with customary guards not liable because may be safer another way. Toye v. United Dressed Beef Co., 141 App. Div. 332. Guarding machines and appliances. Wynkoop v. Ludlow Valve Mfg. Co., 196 N. Y. 324. Sudden starting of machinery. Kirkover v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 184 App. Div. 792. Where young children employed. Kirwan v. American Lithograph Co., 197 N. Y. 413. It is for jury to show whether machinery and engine properly installed. Moore v. Otto Gas Engine Co., 136 App. Div. 713. Meaning of operating of machinery. Buckley v. Beinhauer, 136 App. Div. 540. Automobile is dangerous machine and owner liable for damages caused by chauffeur on highway. Ingraham ». Stockamoce, 63 Misc. 114. Manufacturer When liable to purchaser for defective machinery purchased of dealer. Kuelling v. Roderick Leau Mfg. Co., 88 App. Div. 309. Manufacturer of gas generator not liable to purchaser for ex- plosion due to purchaser’s negligence. Razey v. Colt Co., 106 App. Div. 103. Manufacturer’s liability for negligent construction of appliances. Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co., 195 N. Y. 478. 426 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Master and Servant Assumption of risk from master’s failure to adopt rules and in- struct employees. Kennedy v. Wanamaker, 145 App. Div. 428. Duty of master to instruct unskilled laborer in charge of ma- chinery. Collins v. Waterbury Co., 144 App. Div. 670. When employee is not engaged in master’s business. Wimmer v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 92 App. Div. 258. Proof that act of conductor was within scope of his employment. Hewson v. Interurban St. R. R., 95 App. Div. 112. Liability where break was due to dry rot not apparent on surface. Meehan »v. Altas Safe Moving Co., 94 App. Div. 306. Right of employee continuing work after promise by master to cure defect, to sue for damages. Hemstock v. Lackawanna Iron & Steel Co., 98 App. Div. 332. Duty of employer to make rule that two men must operate a winch. Johnson v. Prince Line, Limited, 104 App. Div. 157. Injuries caused by alleged improper instructions to servant. Thayer v. Utica Knitting Co., 183 N. Y. 18. Master’s duty to protect servant from co-servant’s negligence in use of explosives. O’Brien v. Buffalo Furnace Co., 183 N. Y. 317. . Master not responsible for servant’s acts while temporarily under another’s contract. Wiebur v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R.,.109 App. Div. 81. Master not liable for acts not in contemplation of the master. McGuirk v. Manhattan Life Insurance Co., 50 Misc. 590. When the relation exists after working hours. McDonald v. Simpson Crawford Co., 114 App. Div. 859. A DIGEST: OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 427 Master and Servant—Continued A temporary relation as such may exist outside of that in which servant is appointed and paid. Callahan v. Munson Steamship Co., 71 Misc. 525. Master not liable for injury to servant knowing the dangers of work. Logerto v. Central Building Co., 123 App. Div. 840. Master liable if his negligence was the efficient cause, though acting in conjunction with a cause for which he is not responsible. Dutcher v. Rockland Electric Co., 123 App. Div. 765. On what the relationship depends. Wilson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 129 App. Div. 125. At common law master to furnish safe place to work, competent and safe employees or fellow servants and safe appliances. Farley v. White Engineering Co., 131 App. Div. 228. Master liable for negligence of servant. Jones v. Weigand, 134 App. Div. 644. Relation must exist to produce liability. Thomas v. Springer, 134 App. Div. 640. Acquiesence of master in use of elevator. Krause v. Gair Company, 136 App. Div. 357. Right of employee to bind his master by promises made. Hemstock v. Lackawanna Iron & Steel Co., 98 App. Div. 332. There is no presumption that the master has failed to discharge his duty towards his servant. Edgar v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 146 App. Div. 541. At common law when the master has furnished suitable ap- pliances and a foreman, if foreman directs use of other appliances unfit and dangerous, it is a detail of work and negligence cannot be imputed to the master. Wells v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 147 App. Div. 155. 428 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Master and Servant—Continued Master may be negligent in not furnishing safe place to work although the building is under construction and occupation haz- ardous. Also negligent for failing to instruct inexperienced serv- ants. Chinn v. Ferro Construction Co., 148 App. Div. 368. The master does not guarantee the correctness of an inspector’s judgment. Scott v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 697. Master’s responsibility for act of servant is whether the act was done in prosecution of the master’s business. Wooding v. Thorn, 148 App. Div. 21. When master not liable to servant for injury caused by error of foreman or the omissions of the foreman’s duty. Dair v. N. Y. & P. R. Steamship Co., 204 N. Y. 341. Materials Where plaintiff selects a plank on which to stand, out of a quan- tity furnished by master, master not liable. Wynne v. Continental Asphalt Paving Co., 61 Misc. 94. Duty to furnish proper and safe materials. Chiavaroli v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 181 App. Div. 372. Sufficient material, employer not liable. Mattson v. Phoenix Construction Co., 185 App. Div. 234. Using of dangerous material. Cooper v. Jordan, 135 App. Div. 718. Merger of Corporation Right of action existing but action not commenced, it must be brought against new corporation. Lee v. Stilwater & Mechanicsville R. R., 140 App. Div. 779. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 429 Merchant Injury to customer. Weller v. Consolidated Gas Co., 198 N. Y. 98. Contributory negligence of customer. Weller v. Consolidated Gas Co., 198 N. Y. 98. Methods When jury may find that master failed to adopt proper method. Tasmaseric v. Beckwith, 145 App. Div. 78. Employee choosing more dangerous of two methods of perform- ing duty cannot recover for injury not occurring if the less danger- ous had been selected. Keeler v. N. Y.C.& H.R. R.R. & N. H. & H.R. R., 114 App. Div. 807. When method employed is successful in blasting employee cannot recover because it was a negligent method. Andruiszis v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 143 App. Div. 607. Master need not adopt safest or best known methods. Ozogar v. Pierce, Butler & Pierce Mfg. Co., 134 App. Div. 800. Mistake Mistake in judgment not negligence. Obenland v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 127 App. Div. 418. Model When model of a bridge is competent in evidence. Coolidge v. City of New York, 99 App. Div. 175. Municipal Corporations Responsible for performance of duties by their officials. Josupeet v. City of Niagara Falls, 70 Misc. 638. Sufficiency of notice to claim damages for defective side walk. Purdy v. City of N. Y., 126 App. Div. 320. 430 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Municipal Corporations—Continued Claim against must be verified and presented before summons served. Cotress v. Village of Medina, 139 App. Div. 872. When resolution by the Board of Aldermen is in effect a permit, Landau »v. City of N. Y., 180 N. Y. 48. Liable for acts not within the powers of the city departments. Dilluvio v. City of N. Y., 73 Mise. 122. Governmental functions, departments and boards. Dilluvio v. City of N. Y., 73 Misc. 122. Evidence sufficient to establish actual notice to city required by charter. McManus v. City of Watertown, 88 App. Div. 361. Liable for failure to enact or enforce ordinances or omissions of police. Landan v. City of N. Y., 90 N. Y. 50. Notice of cause of accident to be served on supervisor of town. Eggleston v. Town of Chautauqua, ¥0 App. Div. 314. Charter requiring notice of accident within 48 hours. Walden »v. City of Jamestown, 178 N. Y. 213. Does not insure safety of travellers on its highway. O’Shaughnessey v. Village of Middleport, 93 App. Div. 93. What notice of defect in highway to city is sufficient. McCarthy v. City of Syracuse, 96 App. Div. 566. When limited permissign to exhibit fireworks in street renders it liable. : Landau v. City of N. Y., 180 N. Y. 48. Liability for permission for use of fireworks constituting nui- sance. Landau »v. City of New York, 180 N. Y. 48. When act of God in bringing freshet of water does not relieve city from its negligence. O’Donnell v. City of Syracuse, 102 App. Div. 80. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 431 Municipal Corporations—Continued When lapse of 153 minutes does not give constructive notice to city of defect in highway. McFeeters v. City of New York, 102 App. Div. 32. When liable for injury from negligent management of horse and vehicle hired in its employment. Gorney v. City of N. Y., 102 App. Div. 259. Where city has given permit to place obstruction in street, no- tice need not be shown. Godfrey v. City of N. Y., 104 App. Div. 357. Damage accrues to abutting owner whose entry to factory is impaired by highway obstruction. Schleicher v. City of Mt. Vernon, 107 App. Div. 584. Failure to file claim with city in statutory period. Schleicher v. City of Mt. Vernon, 107 App. Div. 584. Defects in notice cannot be cured by amendments at trial. Kleyle v. City of Oswego, 109 App. Div. 330. When notice of claim for injury on highway sufficient. Kleyle v. City of Oswego, 109 App. Div. 330. When city not liable for failure to protect highway against floods from sewer. O’Donnell v. City of Syracuse, 184 N. Y. 1. Liability for omission or commission of corporate acts. O’Donnell v. City of Syracuse, 184 N. Y. 1. Action for injury causing death is an action for personal injuries requiring notice. Crapo v. City of Syracuse, 183 N. Y. 395. Not error to charge that city is obliged to keep streets in good, safe and passable condition. Kopper v. City of Yonkers, 110 App. Div. 747. What notice of defects in condition of school building will make city liable for injuries. Wahrman ». City of N. Y. & Board of Education, 111 App. Div. 345. 432 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Municipal Corporations—Continued When city liable for injuries from icy side walk in front of school premises. Pymm »v. City of N. Y., 111 App. Div. 330. When city not liable for injuries caused by licensee. DeAgremonte v. City of Mt. Vernon, 112 App. Div. 291. When city inspector finds defect, city chargeable with actual notice. ° Parks v. City of N. Y., 111 App. Div. 836. Not liable for negligence of servants performing services for the public benefit. Noble v. Hahnemann Hospital, 112 App. Div. 663. Error to admit evidence of resolution of common council that open gutters were dangerous, etc. O’Connor v. City of Dunkirk, 143 App. Div. 696. Municipal. corporation with many miles of streets not liable for injury to horse stepping on stone. McKone v. Village of Warsaw, 187 N. Y. 336. May waive requirement as to presenting claim, by city officials examining cause-of accident and the claimant. Winter v. City of Niagara Falls, 119 App. Div. 586. Bound to perform its duties the same as a corporation or indi- vidual. Hunton v. Village of Peekskill, 119 App. Div. 500. Wooden awning in street so placed as to be knocked down by passing vehicle, city liable. Mansfield v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 199. Municipal corporation entitled to reasonable time in which to remove ice and snow from side walk. Schneider v. City of N. Y., 143 App. Div. 216. Conduct of a police department is the exercise of a govern- mental function. Wilcox v. City of Rochester, 190 N. Y. 137. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 433 Municipal Corporations—Continued When complaint in action against, states sufficient facts to con- stitute cause of action. Hungerford v. Village of Waverly, 56 Mise. 186. Sufficient evidence as to filing notice of claim. Hungerford v. Village of Waverly, 56 Misc. 186. -. Contractor not liable for death of city employee unless due to method or manner of doing work. Riggs v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 134 App. Div. 672. Complaint against should show filing of notice and proof. of filing introduced. Bernreither v. City of N. Y., 123 App. Div. 291. Generally city may recover against person responsible for injury. City of N. Y. v. Hearst, 142 App. Div. 343. When notice sufficiently definite. McDowell v. City of Auburn, 126 App. Div. 173. Constructive notice of defect in walk must be known and no- torious and city had opportunity through agents to repair. Ferguson v. Village of Waverly, 128 App. Div. 697. No obligation to light outlying districts. Andrews v. City of Elmira, 128 App. Div. 699. City not liable for explosion of dynamite used by sub-contractor. Murphy v. City of N. Y., 128 App. Div. 463. Variance between pleading and proof as to location of defect in street. Collins v. City of Watervliet, 130 App. Div. 291. City of second class, statutory provisions as to notice to be given. Higgins v. cay of Albany, 130 ee: Div. 276. Sewers, care to prevent overflow. Beyer v. City of N. Y., 141 App. Div. 679. 434 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Municipal Corporations—Continued As to plans of sewers, etc. Pitman v. City of N. Y., 141 App. Div. 670. Contractor with municipality fer public work, responsible for injuries from negligence of sub-contractor resulting from nature of work, not for negligence in performance. Dorn v. Snare & Triest Co., 62 Misc. 269. When jury may find constructive notice to municipal corporation. Moriarty v. City of N. Y., 182 App. Div. 10. Municipal corporation not liable for negligence of various de- partments. Gaetjens v. City of N. Y., 182 App. Div. 394. Municipal corporations, slight defects. Davidson v. City of N. Y., 183 App. Div. 353. Municipal corporations. Owen v. City of N. Y., 141 App. Div. 217. Municipal corporations. Vanderbilt v..Geneva, 182 App. Div. 943. Defect or obstruction in street too trivial to charge city. Powers v. Village of Mechanicsville, 140 App. Div. 835. Issuing of permits for excavation merely charges corporation with notice. Buckley v. City of N. Y., 185 App. Div. 512. When written claim for damages need not be presented to city. Ahrens v. City of Rochegter, 97 App. Div. 480. To hold city liable for obstacles placed in street by stranger, city, must have notice express or implied of obstruction and fail to remove it. Thomas v. City of New York, 146 App. Div. 512. City not liable for obstruction in street because a nuisance, where it did not create or maintain it. Harmon »v. City of New York, 148 App. Div. 61. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 435 Municipal Corporations—Continued Where city has notice of original obstruction it is under a con- tinuous duty of inspection until the obstruction is removed and is entitled to no further notice of condition. Loretz v. City of New York, 148 App. Div. 721. Negligence Concurring negligence of employer and co-employee. Earle v. Clyde Steamship Co., 43 Misc. 535. Where evidence clearly consistent with absence of as with ex- istence of negligence, defendant not liable. McDonough ». James Reilly Supply & Repair Co., 47 Misc. 109. Not actionable unless a violation of legal duty to exercise care. Thaney v. Friederick & Sons Co., 44 Misc. 134. Where either of two causes may have caused injury, for one of which defendant liable, for other not, recovery not sustained. Nelson v. City of New York, 101 App. Div. 18. Proximate and concurrent acts of negligence. Mangan v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 50 Misc. 388. Gross negligence is something more than mistake of judgment, and refers to reckless or willful disregard of right of property or life. Wilson v. D. L. & W. R. R., 119 App. Div. 675. Actionable negligence, on what it is based. MacRoe v. Chelsea Fiber Mills, 145 App. Div. 588. What is a test of negligence. Steinbrenner v. Forney Co., 143 App. Div. 73. Each action for negligence turns on its peculiar facts, and other cases are not direct precedents. Carr v. City of N. Y., 121 App. Div. 578. Jury not to speculate, but plaintiff must show specific acts con- stituting negligence. Gibbons v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 122 App. Div. 87. 436 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Negligence—Continued Negligence established where accident was to be foreseen and anticipated. Hartman v. Berlin & Jones Envelope Co., 71 Misc. 30. Cause established where without defendant’s negligence accident would not have happened. Hartman »v. Berlin & Jones Envelope Co., 71 Misc. 30. Plaintiff alleging breach of duty must point out that to which duty attaches. Pagnillo v. Mack Paving & Construction Co., 142 App. Div. 491. Negligence cannot be predicated where none of the acts con- tribute to the accident. ‘Glasgow v. Jordan, 124 App. Div. 488. Carelessness of others no excuse for negligence of plaintiff. Evans v. Pearson & Son, Inc., 125 App. Div. 666. Law of negligence not based on highest degree of care or care which highly prudent person would use, but on average reasonable care. Spannknebel v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 127 App. Div. 345. Where death is hastened by the injury, defendant liable. McCahill v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 201 N. Y. 221. | Responsibility for negligence is same whether injured person diseased or well. McCahill v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 201 N. Y. 221. Negligence presumed where elevator fails to stop and then falls to bottom of shaft. . Keller v. Wave Realty Co., 128 App. Div. 154. Where negligence not proven but injury proven. Hanson v. Hogan, 61 Misc. 95. Actionable negligence consists in omission of duty which ought to have been performed, or doing that which ought not to have been done. Toppi ». McDonald, 128 App. Div. 443.. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 437 Negligence—Continued Negligence may be shown by circumstances from which infer- ence may be drawn. Wilson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 129 App. Div. 125. Agreement to assume liability for state’s negligence, against pub- lie policy. People v. Syracuse Rapid Transit Co., 129 App. Div. 800. Prima facie evidence of negligence. Forton v. Crosstown St. R. R. Co., 63 Misc. 237. Prima facie evidence of. Nixon v. Thompson Starrett Co., 131 App. Div. 152. Common law negligence and under employers’ act. Simpson v. The Foundation Co., 132 App. Div. 375. Negligence of two persons concurring. Sweet v. Perkins, 196b N. Y. 482. Acts or omissions constituting negligence. Kelly v. Hudson Companies, 65 Mise. 574. It is to be determined by what an ordinarily prudent man would do under ordinary circumstances. Dooling v. City of N. Y., 148 App. Div. 713. Where question of negligence at common law is involved, it is proper to show ordinary care by general usage and practice. | Shannahan v. Empire Engineering Corporation, 204 N. Y. 543. No exact definition of gross negligence can be given. Weld v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 148 App. Div. 588. Negligence based on duty. Cohen 1. Koster, 133 App. Div. 570. Negligence not inferred by nature of accident. Nichols v. Searle Mfg. Co., 134 App. Div. 62. . Prima facie case of negligence. Kircher v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 134 App. Div. 144. Cannot be based upon a mere inference. Connors v. Cranford Co., 146 App. Div 53. 438 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW New Trial Motion for new trial on the ground of surprise. Harvey v. Fargo, 99 App. Div. 599. Exception not necessary to review order denying motion for. Toohey v. Interurban St. R. R., 102 App. Div. 296. , Order granting will not be set aside because wrong reason is given for it. Ross v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 104 App. Div. 378. When on dismissal of complaint after verdict, a new trial and not re-instatement of verdict is proper. Duhme v. Hamburg American Packet Co., 107 App. Div. 237. On motion for new trial, trivial errors considered when pre- ponderance of evidence is with the defendant. Hoyt v. Davis, Mfg. Co., 112 App. Div. 755. When burden of proof not sustained by reason of contradictory statements at first and secend trials. Fisher v. Central Vermont R. R., 118 App. Div. 446. New trial not granted on ground of surprise by evidence where no bill of particulars demanded nor motion to make complaint definite and certain. Roenbeck v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 123 App. Div. 606. When former decision oy appeal not applicable on new trial. Reilly v. Troy Brick Co., 125 App. Div. 326. Appellate Division has power to entertain an appeal from order denying motion for new trial. Callahan v. Munson Steamship Line, 141 App. Div. 791. Change of testimony to obviate defects of former trial suspicious. Brennan v. City of N. Y., 180 App. Div. 267. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 439 Non-suit Where decision of motion for reserved with defendant’s consent, cause submitted, defendant confined to motion for new trial. Smith v. Milliken Bros., 200 N. Y. 21. Where non-suit could not be granted, the trial court and Appel- late Division may set aside verdict as contrary to evidence. Fish v. Utica Steam & Mohawk Valley Cotton Mills, 109 App. Div. 326. Plaintiff entitled to most favorable view of the facts. Dorff v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 95 App. Div. 82. Presumption on appeal from judgment of non-suit. McConnell v. Morse Iron Works, 102 App. Div. 324. Trial justice elevated to Appellate Division cannot decide reserved motion for non-suit. Milliman v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 109 App. Div. 139. When non-suit granted all inferences are in favor of plaintiff. Lewis v. Erie R. R., 105 App. Div. 292. Error to non-suit in action for property damages where there is evidence of some degree of care. Ohl & Co. v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 9. (Mem.) Under employers’ liability act non-suit can be granted only on two grounds, defendant not negligent, plaintiff guilty of con- tributory negligence. Kinney v. Rutland R. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 286. Where decision of motion for is reserved and verdict rendered for plaintiff, court cannot direct verdict for defendant on the merits, but is limited to non-suit. Crecelius v. City of N. Y., 114 App. Div. 801. Failure to move for non-suit at close of trial admits a question of fact to be determined. Spencer v. State of N. Y., 187 N. Y. 484. Non-suit granted by judge will bar a subsequent action, where cause submitted to him. Miller v. International R. R. Co., 52 Misc. 344. 440. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—-LAW_ Non-suit—Continued ‘.Non-suit as a decision on:the merits. Miller v. International R. R. Co., 52 Mise. 344. > + Non-suit on ground that defendant was free from negligence cannot be sustained because pane failed to prove freedom from contributory negligence. 4 Wendell v. Leo, 115 App. Div. 850. Where judge.reserves decision as to negligence, and jury does not agree, court may pass on motion for non-suit. Specht v. Waterbury Co., 70 Misc. 404. Motion for non-suit should be reserved until after defendant’s case is in. Seager v. Solvay Process Co., 129 App. Div. 813. Only granted where no evidence in law to sustain the verdict. Hallett v. Liebmanns Sons Brewing Co., 129 App. Div. 617. Error in non-suit. Palin v. Carey Brick Co., 133 App. Div. 483. Non-suit. Johnson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 183 App. Div. 252. Where evidence points to negligence and absence of DERN, Phelps v. Erie R. R., 184 App. Div. 729. Injury from falling of bags of merchandise. Rashkoff v. Erie R. R., 141 App. Div. 624. A dismissal of complaint at close of case for failure of proof where the record does not show that defendant had rested, is not on the merits but merely a non-suit. Kaplan v. Friedman Construction Co., 148 App. Div. 14. Notes ' Where blanks partly filled and amount raised, the party invit- ing the fraud must bear the loss rather than holder for value, " National Exchange Bank of Albany v. Lester, 119 App. Div. 786. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 44] Notice Failure to give notice of defect in machinery. McGlynn v. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 144 App. Div. 343. Proof that intestate had previously passed over road on which he was killed. Quinlan v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 89 App. Div. 266. Evidence of previous accidents admissible to show notice of condition. Holzhauser v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 43 Mise. 145. When employee cannot be charged with notice of existence of excavation. . Wood v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 93 App. Div. 53. When lapse of time not necessary to create presumption of notice. -McGuire v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 104 App. Div. 105. Effect of disregarding sign of “No admittance.” Withers v. Brooklyn Real Estate Exchange, 106 App. Div. 255. Failure to file notice of claim with city in statutory period. Schleicher v. City of Mt. Vernon, 107 App. Div. 584. When defects in notice cannot be cured by amendment on trial. Kleyle v. City of Oswego, 109 App. Div. 330. Failure to prove notice of defect. Benjamin v. Village of Tupper Lake, 110 App. Div. 426. What notice of defects in school building will render city liable for injuries received. Wahrman »v. City of N. Y. & Board of Education, 111 App. Div. 345. Landlord liable where he hasnotice of condition or of circumstances equivalent to notice. Hanselman v. Broad, 113 App. Div. 447. For jury to determine whether master negligent in not furnishing watchman to give warning. Sheriden v. Interborough R. T. Co., 115 App. Div. 282. 442 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Notice—Continued What is not a waiver of its sufficiency. Carson v. Village of Dresden, 202 N. Y. 414. Notice defective which fails to describe place of accident, etc. Carson v. Village of Dresden, 202 N. Y. 414. Negligence of superintendent not sufficient notice under em- ployers’ act. Thompson »v. Post & McCord, 143 App. Div. 394. Where no evidence that conditions had existed sufficient time to give notice. Kaplowitz v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 52 Misc. 648. (Mem.) Nuisance existing for many years, municipality charged with notice. Mansfield v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 199. Where notice of defect in machinery is given to master and he promises to repair, continued operation by employee not contrib- utory negligence. Reich v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 120 App. Div. 445. No recovery can be had against independent contractor for brick falling from scaffold, without proof of knowledge of likelihood of such an injury. Choyce v. Hopper & Son, 120 App. Div. 177. To recover of master for defects he must have had notice of same. Rockstrow v. Astoria Marble Co., 121 App. Div. 144. Conditions causing accident must have been made by defendant or existed long enough to ‘be discovered and removed. Dudley v. Abraham et al., 122 App. Div. 480. Notice must be had or given of defect in pipe to sustain recovery for leakage. Fitzgerald v. Goldstein, 56 Misc. 677. When clause in contract requiring notice does not relieve carrier from negligence. Richardson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 122 App. Div. 120. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 443 Notice—Continued A defect must have existed so long as to charge master with negligence in failing to discover it. Schlappendorf v. American R. R. Traffic Co., 142 App. Div. 554. There must be proof of notice or reasonable opportunity to in- spect machine. Schlappendorf v. American R. R. Traffic Co., 142 App. Div. 554. When owner of building charged with constructive notice of dangerous condition of stairs. Bayley v. Curtis Brothers Lumber Co., 124 App. Div. 496. In gas explosion, company only liable after notice and opportunity to remedy defect. Mowers v. Municipal Gas Co., 142 App. Div. 169. When question of timely service of notice under act for jury. ‘Trotto v. Bellew & Merritt Co., 127 App. Div. 400. Where defendant’s witness had given testimony as to plaintiff’s knowledge of the walk, error to refuse plaintiff permission to examine witness as to time, to show constructive notice to city. Murphy v. City of N. Y., 142 App. Div. 62. Defect of notice only cured by proof of knowledge of master. Palmieri v. 8. Pearson & Son, Inc., 128 App. Div. 231. Master not to be charged with notice of defect in appliances when duty of employee to report it and he fails to do so. Gardner v. Schenectady Railway Co., 128 App. Div. 12. Notice when not too indefinite, constructive notice held insufii- cient. Romanowski v. City of Tonawanda, 127 App. Div. 814. In absence of evidence that defendant knew plaster liable to fall, verdict must be for defendant. Frahm v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 131 App. Div. 747. ‘ Constructive notice same as discovery. Kirby v. Montgomery Bros. Co., 197 N. Y. 27. 444 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW | Notice—Continued Notice defective under employers’ liability act. Flanagan v. Carlin Construction Co., 1384 App. Div. 236. Constructive notice of defect. Wynn »v. Carlin, 135 App. Div. 795. Charged with notice corporation bound to guard excavation. Buckley v. City of N. Y., 135 ‘App. Div. 512. Notice in elevator that persons use the same at their own risk. Krause v. Gair Company, 136 App. Div. 357. Defective notice. Bertolami v. United Engineering & Contracting Co., 182 App. Div. 804. Nuisance Responsibility of an employee for a common law nuisance. Boston v. Abraham, 91 App. Div. 417. Judgment in negligence action can not be sustained on theory of nuisance. May York v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R., 108 App, Div. 126. Recovery for negligence in action brought on theory of nuisance. Opper v. Davega, 116 App. Div. 261. When steps in cellar way in street not nuisance. Opper v. Hellinger, 116 App. Div. 261. Hoisting engine near highway located there by city not a nui- sance. ° Munroe #. Wells Bros. Co., 116 App. Div. 663. Awning in street so placed as to be knocked down by passing vehicle is a nuisance and city liable for injuries. Mansfield v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 199. Where person under permission of city creates nuisance, city can recover against him. City of N. Y. v. Hearst, 142 App. Div. 348. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 445- Nuisance—Continued Where city notifies person creating nuisance to defend action a Judgment against city is conclusive against him. City of N. Y. v. Hearst, 142 App. Div. 343. Where complaint at trial alleged negligence, the court: could not charge the law of nuisance. Furst v. Zucker, 125 App. Div. 591. Contractor liable for acts of sub-contractor where work is a nuisance. Murphy »v.:City of N. Y., 128 App. Div. 463. Injury along highway, from blasting. Miller v. Twiname, 129 App. Div. 623. Action based on negligence, court cannot find nuisance. Savarese v. Frankel, 130 App. Div. 464. Attractive nuisance and unattractive nuisance. Middleton v. Reutler, 141 App. Div. 517. City not liable for obstruction in street because a nuisance, where it did not create or maintain it. Harmon »v. City of N. Y., 148 App. Div. 61. Objections What objection not raised on trial is not applicable on appeal.” Mengle v. McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., 89 App. Div. 334. . After testimony admitted ; motion to strike out. Buckley v. Westchester Lighting Co., 93 App. Div. 436. An objection to a certain line of testimony is sufficient. Date v. N. Y. Glucose Co., 104 App. Div. 207. An objection to testimony made after admission of part of the answer is too late. , Date v. N. Y. Glucose Co., 104 App. Div. 207. 446 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Obstruction Obstructions in street. Buckley v. City of New York, 135 App. Div. 512. Officials One who sues in official capacity cannot recover individually. Johnson v. Phoenix Bridge Co., 133 App. Div. 807. Opinion To base an opinion on results of accident, conditions must be connected with accident by their evidence. Mackey »v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 467. When opinion that plaintiff’s disabilities were caused by accident inadmissible. Mackey v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 467. Improper for witness to testify that mine was properly managed as to blasting. Miller v. Twiname, 129 App. Div. 623. Evidence, comments upon by court. Cross v. City of Syracuse, 200 N. Y. 393. Orders Employee cannot recover for injuries from collision where it was due to failure of fellow servants to obey orders. Hayes v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 121 App. Div. 188. * Failure of fireman to give order to engineer and conductor, guilty of contributory negligence. Butler v. Buffalo Rochester & Pittsburgh R. R., 142 App. Div. 282. ae Ordinary Care Ordinary care such as a reasonable person would exercise to protect persons using elevator. Frahm »v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 131 App. Div. 747. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 447 Ordinances Giving right of way does not authorize dangerous speed. Kellogg v. Church Charity Foundation, etc., 135 App. Div. 839. Failure to enact or enforce ordinances. Landan v. City of N. Y., 90 N. Y. 50. Judicial notice of ordinances. Boston v. Abraham, 91 App. Div. 417. Ordinances as to side walk not applicable to alley. Moran v. City cf N. Y.; 98 App. Div. 301. Ordinances regulating speed. Robinson v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 103 App. Div. 243. City ordinance as to direction of moving vehicles. McCarragher v. Proal, 114 App. Div. 470. Violation of ordinance by allowing obstruction to sewer. Watson v. City of N. Y., 51 Misc. 653. Municipality not liable for failure of fire board to enforce or- dinances. Carpenter v. City of N. Y., 115 App. Div. 552. Violation of duty imposed by ordinance is evidence justifying a verdict. Shields v. Pugh & Co., 122 App. Div. 586. Party violating ordinance cannot recover for injuries sustained. Tolkon v. Otto E. Reimer Co., 125 App. Div. 695. In view of ordinance and speed, violation of such ordinance is not to be anticipated. Jordan v. Erie R. R. Co., 126 App. Div. 919. . ‘Violation of ordinance not sufficient to establish liability of persons permitting obstructions. Fluker v. Ziegele Brewing Co., 201 N. Y. 40. Violation of ordinance. Burke v. City & County Contract Co., 1383 App. Div. 113. 448 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Ordinances—Continued Control of ordinances.’ Burke v. City & County Contract Co.; 133 App. Div. 113. Rights of parties under ordinances; giving car right of way over cab. Cushing v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 92 App. Div. 510.. City not bound to anticipate violation of ordinances by strangers. Thomas ». City of New York, 146 App. Div. ale. a TES ae ea gt Ownership cee What implied by proof of ownership. - McCann v. Davison, 145 App. Div. 522. What is proof of ownership and that vehicle and horse was left unattended. Brand v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 95 App. Div. 64. » Question calling for testimony bearing on ownership proper. Snitten v. Brown, 52 Misc. 569. Not incumbent on plaintiff to show that defendant's: cars in- jured him. Jennings v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 121 App. Div. 587. 4 No presumption that other companies run cars over defendant’s tracks. Jennings v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 121 App. Div. 587. Ownership of train concluded from operation, etc., of. «1. | Moore v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R. Co., 133 App. Div. 396. ° Parent When father can recover more than nominal damages for death of son. cae = Predmore v. Consumer’s Light & Power Co., 99 App. Div. 551. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 449 Parties Changing parties from trustee to individual merely changes capacity in which it is sought to charge defendant. Boyd v. U. 8. Mortgage & Trust Co., 187 N. Y. 262. Action for injuries to goods by water, all owners of goods must be joined, one cannot sue for several. Moppar v. Wiltchik, 56 Misc. 676. When relation of the parties for the jury. Esposito v. Rock Plaster Co., 141 App. Div. 751. When injury is the joint wrong of several parties, plaintiff may recover against either or all. Walsh v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 204 N. Y. 58. Pass Railroad employee travelling on pass is considered employee of railroad. Vroom v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. B., 129 App. Div. 858. Passenger Duty of street railroad to passenger riding on steps of car. Moskowitz v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 89 App. Div. 425. When assurance of safety implied by allowing him to ride on running board of car. Sheeron v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R., 89 App. Div. 338. Where signal to start is unauthorized act of passenger, railroad not liable. McDonough ». 3rd Ave. R. R., 95 App. Div. 311. Brakeman need not be stationed at foot of steps to assist pas- senger. Dunne v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 99 App. Div. 571. Duty of railroad to a passenger’s escort. Dunne v. N. Y., N. H..& H. R. R., 99 App. Div. 571. 450 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Passenger—Continued When failure to close or lock state room will not bar recovery for lost articles. Hart v. North German Lloyd S. 8. Co., 108 App. Div. 279. Duty of railroad in regard to taking on passengers. Walsh v. Interurban St. R. R., 50 Misc. 637. Where platform on curve is distant from car, duty of railroad to warn passenger. Coogan v. Interborough R. T. Co., 50 Mise. 562. Person injured while standing on running board of car must show he was invited to ride in that position as passenger. Kramer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 114 App. Div. 804. Where conductor assumes to assist passenger in alighting his negligence renders company liable. Hanlon v. Central R. R. of N. J., 187 N. Y. 73. Error to charge that passenger had right to stand where he pleased after his fare was taken while in that position. ' Englehardt v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 53 Misc. 474. Passenger to be given reasonable opportunity to reach place of safety in car. Morrow v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 119 App. Div. 22. Duty to warn passengers. Coogan v. Interborough R. T. Co., 52 Misc. 647. (Mem.) Passenger in auto not managing car is not chargeable with neg- ligence of the driver. ‘ Ward v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 119 App. Div. 487. Passenger leaving train at water tank and again returning and thrown and injured by movement of car cannot recover. Winchell ». N. Y.C. & H.R. R. R., 121 App. Div. 52. Railroad not an insurer of property of passengers not placed in its charge or custody. Cohen v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R..R. Co., 121 App. Div. 5. -A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 451 Passenger—Continued Passenger in automobile, when not negligent as matter of law, in failing to jump in presence of imminent danger. Sherwood v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R.; 120 App. Div. 639. A contention that plaintiff was not a passenger cannot be raised for first time on appeal. Kramer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 190 N. Y. 310. Passenger jumping in presence of sudden danger, not guilty of contributory negligence. Grunfelder v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 143 App. Div. 89. Passenger on street car injured in alighting by failure to stop car. Garner v. 42nd St. R. R. Co., 56 Misc. 500. Defendant not liable where motorman could not anticipate passenger alighting at that point. Wilson v. Rochester & Eastern Rapid R. R. Co., 123 App. Div. 90. When passenger assumes risk of position, even though fare was paid. Feldheim v. Brooklyn & Queens Co. R. R., 122 App. Div. 883. Falling when alighting he must show affirmatively negligence of railroad employees. Masterson v. Crosstown St. R. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 499. Injury from negligence in operating car causing collision with truck, railroad liable. Hanley v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., etc., 127 App. Div. 355. Motorman opening front gates for passengers to alight and enter, injuring person hold of same, defendant liable. Stevenson v. Joline, 127 App. Div. 181. Passenger alighting from car receiving injury by negligence of conductor, railroad liable. Blair v. Brooklyn, Queens Co. & Suburban R. R. Co., 141 App. Div. 843. Duty of street railroad to protect passengers from injury. Becker v. Interborough R. T. Co., 128 App. Div. 455. 452 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Passenger—Continued Passenger need not be physically sound to recover for injuries actually received. Miehlke v. Nassau Electric R. R., 129 App. Div. 438. Passenger injured by collision, accident unexplained, inference negligence of driver. ‘ Vogel v. Bahr, 180 App. Div. 732. Injured when attempting to alight before stopping point. Dwyer v. Auburn & Syracuse Electric Co., 131 App. Div. 477. Passenger injured on boarding elevated train. Wehn v. Interborough R. T. Co., 132 App. Div. 841. Duty of railroad to provide safe place for alighting. Catterson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 132 App. Div. 399. Negligence of driver cannot be imputed to passenger. Wood v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R., 133 App. Div. 270. When right to assume a place safe. Christensen v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 134 App. Div. 703. Duty of railroad to make cars safe. Henson v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 194 N. Y. 205. Rule as to passenger in auto looking before crossing railroad. Noakes v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 121 App. Div. 716. Rule as to looking before crossing railroad applies to passenger. Noakes v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 121 App. Div. 716. The question as to whether the plaintiff had in his possession ‘the money claimed to be lost, and whether a reasonable sum for the journey, is for the jury. - Knieriem v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 146 App. Div. 661. Pedestrian Right of pedestrian to assume that care will be exercised by driver in turning corner. Buscher v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 106 App. Div. 493. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 453 Pedestrian—Continued When pedestrian cannot assume that motorman will see her ; im- material that crossing was rough. Healy v. United Traction Co., 115 App. Div. 868. Owner of land adjoining highway not liable for injury to pedes- trian deviating from highway-a short distance. Collins v. Decker, 120 App. Div. 645. Rights of pedestrian on streets. Bradley v. Jaeckel, 65 Misc. 509. In crossing street must be reasonably careful and he cannot charge another with negligence unless he was free from fault. Peterson v. Ballentine & Sons, 205 N. Y. 29. Perjury Presumption as to a party’s attempt to bribe a witness to testify falsely. Brown v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 105 App. Div. 395. Permit Issuing of permit for excavation, charges corporation with notice. Buckley v. City of New York, 135 App. Div. 512. Physician Physician may testify that condition could have resulted from fall and injuries were sufficient to cause such condition. Graham v. Bauland Co., 97 App. Div. 141. Testimony as to amount paid for medical attendance not com- petent unless shown necessary. Mead v. Goldman, 145 App. Div. 509. Testimony of as to result of dissection made when he was not present. Steinacker v. Hills Bros. Co., 91 App. Div. 521. 454. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Physician—Continued Testimony that injury was sufficient cause of condition and not likely to improve. Graham v. Bauland Co., 97 App. Div. 141. Physician can testify that injuries existing at time of trial are result of original injury if he is reasonably certain. Harvey v. Fargo, 99 App. Div. 599. Testimony of physician who traces injury to accident. Johnson v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 101 App. Div. 65. Improper exclusion of physician’s testimony not error when ‘jury find no accident occurred. Russell ». Brooklyn Heights R. R., 104 App. Div. 149. Plaintiff calling witness to show condition immediately after acci- dent waives right to prevent testimony as to subsequent conditions. Powers v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 105 App. Div. 358. Physician’s statement that plaintiff’s condition could have been caused by nervous shock. Newton v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 106 App. Div. 415. Error to allow physician to state what the symptoms suggest or indicate or as to possibilities. Gleason v. Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 143 App. Div. 884. Physician’s testimony that results described by a witness may have so resulted from the accident, is competent. Kehoe v. International R. R. Co., 56 Misc. 138. Error to charge that plaintiff may recover for pain and suffer- ing from fall and additi6nal expense if she used care in selecting physician. Wade v. City of Mt. Vernon, 123 App. Div. 796. Where plaintiff calls physician defendant may cross examine as to treatment before accident. Seaman v. Mott, 127 App. Div. 18. Privilege, waiver of. Speck v. International R. R. Co., 1383 App. Div. 802. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 455 Photograph Photograph to show appearance. Dresch ». Elliott, 187 App. Div. 252. When decedent’s photograph admissible in evidence. Smith v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 177 N. Y. 379. When photograph taken six months after injury, competent. Miller v. City of N. Y., 104 App. Div. 33. Plans Plans of structure by municipal corporation. Pitman v. City of New York, 141 App. Div. 670. Plaintiff Evidence as to plaintiff’s family, wife and children, improper. Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479. Plaintiff required to show specific acts constituting negligence. Gibbons v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 122 App. Div. 87. There may be single cause of action although based on common law, employer’s liability act and federal statutes. Payne v. N. Y. 8. & W. R. R., 141 App. Div. 833. Pleadings When judgment is not in accordance with pleadings. Brodsky v. Kronenberg, 145 App. Div. 594. An injury not the immediate necessary result of the accident, must be pleaded. Dittman v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 87 App. Div. 68. Judgment in conformity with pleading. Walsh v. Nassau Electric R. R., 133 App. Div. 144. Motion for judgment on pleadings is not governed by same rules as where made on ground that pleading is frivolous. Olsen v. Singer Mfg. Co., 143 App. Div. 142. 456 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Pleadings—Continued Separate acts of negligence at common law and under employers’ act may be alleged without separately stating each. Acardo v. N. Y. Contracting & Trucking Co., 116 App. Div. 793. Failure to allege that a skid on side walk was slippery does not prevent proof of fact. ‘ Shane v. National Biscuit Co., 102 App. Div. 188. Power of Court to allow amendments to pleadings. Bovee v. International Paper Co., 108 App. Div. 94. What may be proven under general allegation of bodily injury. Rudomin v. Interurban Street R. R., 111 App. Div. 548. What proof proper to show result and condition from injuries alleged. Hynds v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 111 App. Div. 339. Variance between pleading alleging one proximate cause and proof of another. Scheu v. Union R. R. Co., of New York, 112 App. Div. 289. Allegations of negligence not proven at trial may be treated as surplusage. Acardo v. N. Y. Contracting & Trucking Co., 116 App. Div. 793. Order to make more definite and certain should not require dis- closure of facts proper in a bill of particulars. Harrington v. Stillman, 120 App. Div. 659. In action against two defendants, one charged with concurrent negligence, plaintiff must separately state and number the causes of action. Hamnstrown v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 122 App. Div. 48. Defendant may show that damage was caused by others and he not responsible for acts. Kiers v. Rathjen, 60 Misc. 105. Variance between pleadings and evidence as to negligence A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 457 Pleadings—-Continued described, not sufficient to set aside verdict where plaintiff did not know allegation in pleading as to manner of accident. McGrath v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 63. Recovery for wanton negligence under complaint alleging only negligence. Neuberger v. Long Island R. R. Co., 131 App. Div. 885. Motion before judgment on pleadings, how determined. Ship v. Fridenburg, 132 App. Div. 782. Party must be held to allegations of pleadings or facts naturally resulting therefrom. Keefe v. Lee, 197 N. Y. 68. Policeman Police officer in street could assume that vehicles would keep to right. Xenodochius v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 129 App. Div. 26. Policeman on traffic duty in street need not exercise the care of a pedestrian. Xenodochius v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 129 App. Div. 26. Police officer is a licensee but owner not bound to keep premises in safe condition as to him. Racine v. Morris, 136 App. Div. 467. Possible Danger Warning against possible danger. Decora v. American Carbide Co., 136 App. Div. 52. Possibilities Calculation of possibilities. Loomis v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 183 App. Div. 247. 458 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Possibilities—Continued Error in allowing testimony as to probable suffering occurring from injury. Tutt v. City of Rensselaer, 126 App. Div. 502. Premises Reasonable care in use of appliances on premises to avoid in- jury on adjoining premises. Weitzman v. Barber Asphalt Co., 190 N. Y. 452. Presumption No presumption from lapse of time that a machine out of repair has been repaired. Mansfield v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 199. No presumption that possession of tracks on bridge belongs to one railroad. Meschneck v. Brooklyn, Queens Co. & 8. R. R. Co., 125 App. Div. 265. Person receiving shock from pole owned and controlled by de- fendant, burden on defendant to rebut presumption of negligence. Moglia v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 248. Presumption of negligence where elevator falls in shaft. Keller v. Wove Realty Co., 128 App. Div. 154. Presumption of negligence, breaking of board unexplained. Convey v. Finn, 130 App. Div. 440. Presumption as to lawful use of highway and not maintaining nuisance. Hollis v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 128 App. Div. 821. What facts warrant presumption that defendant constructed a platform. lesief v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 102 App. Div. 168. Presumption of negligence overcome by proof that tenant had no notice of danger, and where no reasonable inspection would have disclosed it. Papazian v. Baumgartner, 49 Misc. 244. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 459 Presumption—Continued Circumstances raising presumption of negligence and requiring submission to jury. Central Brewing Co. v. N. Y. City R. R., 49 Misc. 523. Negligence not presumed from happening of accident in case of electric discharge. Carey v. Manhattan, R. R. Co., 50 Misc. 335. When charge fails to state the explanation which defendant had to plaintiff’s case. Herrman v. New England Navigation Co., 143 App. Div. 551. Presumption of negligence arises when warehouse man fails to deliver goods on demand. Herrman v. New England Navigation Co., 143 App. Div. 551. Question of fact raised. Moore v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 396. Presumptions and burden of proof in case of falling scaffold. Mehler v. Fisch, 65 Misc. 549. Previous Condition Error to exclude evidence that six years before accident, awning inspected and found rotten. Mansfield v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 199. Prima Facie Case Leakage of gas does not make prima facie case against company. Hammerschmidt v. Municipal Gas Co., 114 App. Div. 290. Where plaintiff has established prima facie case and defendant shows care, question is for the jury. Braun v. Union R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 566. Where plaintiff makes, defendant bound to explain. Konigsberg v. Davis, 57 Misc. 630. 460 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Prima Facie Case—Continued Proof of negligence presented by the fall of the structure. Ferrick v. Eidlitz, 123 App. Div. 587. When plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, calling for ex- planation by defendant. Ettlinger v. City of N. Y., 58 Misc. 229. ' Prima facie negligence, fall of sign from front of building. McNulty v. Ludwig & Co., 125 App. Div. 291. Prima facie negligence where defective machine is reported to master and later declared repaired and later out of order and in- jury received. Staskowski v. Standard Oil Co., 127 App. Div. 17. Prima facie case may be proven by baggage left in car at solicita- tion of conductor and failure to return. Croll v. Pullman Co., 61 Misc. 265. Proof Question whether any evidence has been given to establish a charge of negligence, one of law. Jones v. Kroder & Reubel Co., 95 App. Div. 140. Failure of proof from improbability of plaintiff’s statement. McCabe v. Interurban St. R. R., 49 Misc. 251. Failure of proof. Wynn »v. Carlin, 135 App. Div. 795. Proximate Cause * Proximate cause of collision with telephone pole. Scofield v. Town of Poughkeepsie, 122 App. Div. 868. Intervening and proximate cause. Carr v. Merchant’s United Ice Co., 91 App. Div. 162. Proximate cause is the cause setting the other cause in operation, the efficient cause. Wheeler v. Norton, 92 App. Div. 368. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 461 Proximate Cause—Continued Efficient cause is proximate cause. Fine v. Interurban St. R. R., 45 Misc. 587. Setting fire on adjoining land and permitting it to spread to plaintiff’s land. Phelps v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 48 Mise. 27. Proof not sufficient that injury might have resulted from the act. Boland v. N. Y. City R. R., 48 Misc. 523. Proximate cause of injury. Burke v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 722. Where ailments naturally follow injury and result in death, for jury to say whether death was result of injury. Sallie v. N. Y. St. R. R., 110 App. Div. 665. When overcrowding of car not proximate cause of accident. MeVay v. Brooklyn, Queens Co. & Suburban R. R. Co., 113 App. Div. 724. Question whether fall was proximate cause of injury for jury. Gray v. Weir, 113 App. Div. 479. Proximate and concurrent causes of injury, fall from train and subsequent collision with truck. Gray v. Weir, 113 App. Div. 479. Where facts are admitted proximate cause is one of law. Fanizzi v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R. Co., 113 App. Div. 440. Proximate and concurrent cause of injury. Mangan v. Hudson R. Telephone Co., 50 Misc. 388. Where act of fellow servant is such cause plaintiff can not recover. Dulfer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 115 App. Div. 670. Where misunderstanding as to telephone message defendant not liable. VanAlstine v. Standard Light, Heat & Power Co., 116 App. Div. 100. Proximate cause and contributory cause of accident. Mulligan v. Thompson Bros., 143 App. Div. 413. 462 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Proximate Cause—Continued Proximate cause and remote cause defined, illustration. McGovern v. Degnon McLean Const. Co., 120 App. Div. 524. When a violation of a direct order, employee cannot recover. Hayes v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 121 App. Div. 198. Proximate cause of death not established by testimony based on records not proven to be correct. Levy v. Mott Iron Works, 143 App. Div. 7. Jury to say whether starting of car was proximate cause of accident. Randazzo v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 121 App. Div. 573. Where two or more causes, plaintiff must show injury wholly or partly from cause which would render defendant liable. Henson v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 122 App. Div. 160. When failure to secure load on wagon, proximate cause of injury. Johnston v. Stevens, 123° App. Div. 208. How plaintiff may prove proximate cause. Carney v. Minnesota Dock Co., 191 N. Y. 301. There may be two proximate causes of accident. Stedman v. Town of Osceola, 71 Misc. 186. Stone pile proximate cause concurring with frightened horse in highway, causing accident. Stedman v. Town of Osceola, 71 Misc. 186. When ladder not proxinfate cause of injury; machinery rule of liability does not apply to ladder. Smith v. Green Fuel Economizer Co., 123 App. Div. 672. Failure to guard belt of machinery. Hartman »v. Berlin & Jones Envelope Co., 71 Misc. 30. May be two proximate causes of accident, defendant liable if one attributable to his fault. Thompson v. Town of Bath, 142 App. Div. 331. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 463 Proximate Cause—Continued Jury must find that negligent act was proximate cause of acci- dent. Ladiew v. Sherwood Metal Working Co., 125 App. Div. 65. Proximate cause, negligence of motorman. People v. Jackson, 125 App. Div. 873. Where accident was not proximate cause of death plaintiff cannot recover. Ostrander v. Orange Co. Traction Co., 125 App. Div. 603. Where no evidence that the disability from which he suffered was caused by the accident, plaintiff cannot recover. Vickery v. Interborough R. T. Co:, 126 App. Div. 781. Where several proximate causes contribute to accident, each an efficient cause, it may be attributed to any of them. Murphy v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 127 App. Div. 450. Where servant removing pulp from defective rollers, slipped and fell, error to non-suit where slipping was proximate cause. Zajdack v. Lisbon Falls Fibre Co., 127 App. Div. 206. Proximate cause of injury, rule applied as to falling box in gang way. Williams v. Citizens Steamboat Co., 128 App. Div. 807. Whether superintendent or employee liable for falling box. Williams v. Citizens Steamboat Co., 128 App. Div. 807. Bicycle collision, negligent act of bicycler. Andrews v. City of Elmira, 128 App. Div. 699. When condition of rail not proximate cause of injury. Stern v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 193 N. Y. 328. Proximate cause of fall loosing hold of beam. Carlsen v. McKee, 129 App. Div. 652. Proximate cause, elevator, independent cause intervening. Sticht v. Buffalo Cereal Co., 195 N. Y. 70. 464 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Proximate Cause—Continued In death claim, burden on plaintiff to show proximate cause. Moscarello v. Haines, 130 App. Div. 135. Injured in being put off train. McDonnell v. Metropolitan Bridge & Construction Co., 131 App. Div. 303. Burden of showing that negligence alleged was proximate cause. McDonnell v. Metropolitan Bridge & Construction Co., 131 App. Div. 301. Rule as to proximate cause of injury. Vincent v. Crandall & Godley Co., 131 App. Div. 200. Proximate cause of accident. Jackson v. Greene, 134 App. Div. 918. Proximate cause of injury, negligence of person injured. Hynes v. State of New York, 63 Misc. 592. Proximate cause. Inglese v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 183 App. Div. 198. Proximate cause of death. McCormick v. Rochester R. R., 183 App. Div. 760. Proximate cause. Independent Ice Cream Co. v. United Ice Cream Co., 69 Misc. 623. Proximate cause, hidden defects. Gardner v. Westinghouse Electric & General Mfg. Co., 141 App. Div. 5. Proximate cause of death. Reris v. Haines, 134 App Div. 402. Proximate cause. Sweet v. Perkins, 196 N. Y. 482. Manhole with defective grating proximate cause of injury. Casey v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 128 App. Div. 86. Proof that injury was proximate cause of death. Koch v. Zimmerman, 85 App. Div. 370. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 465 Proximate Cause—Continued If each can be said to have been a sufficient cause without which the injury would not have been sustained, the test is whether the accident could have happened without the co-operation of these concurring causes. Pulis v. Stewart, 75 Misc. 268. Concurring causes are where each is an efficient cause without the operation of which the accident would not have occurred. Finkle v. Bolton Landing Lumber Co., 148 App. Div. 500. Public One who invites public to place of business must use care and make it safe. Higgins v. Ruppert, 124 App. Div. 530. No immunity of railroad from liability because its servant is public officer. Sharp v. Erie R. R., 184 N. Y. 100. Railroad There must be proof that car coupler was between cars and free from contributory negligence to sustain verdict for injuries from starting train. McHugh v. Manhattan R. R., 88 App. Div. 554. Duty of railroad to use fences and. other protections to keep track clear. Mendizabal v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 89 App. Div. 387. Respective liability of company owning railroad and company using it under traffic agreement. Klinger ». United Traction Co., 92 App. Div. 100. Duty as to furnishing machinery, its repair and inspection. Newton v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 96 App. Div. 81. Inspection; a brakeman required to inspect is not fellow servant with car inspector. Newton v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 96 App. Div. 81. 466 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Railroad—Continued When notice of intention to start train is required. Dunne v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 99 App. Div. 571. Duty of railroad company to keep station platform clean. McGuire v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 104 App. Div. 105. Rules governing main line of road inadequate to yard. Mintram v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R., 104 App. Div. 38. When pedestrian entitled to assume that train would stop at station. Cranch v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 107 App. Div. 341. Duty to provide rules preventing movement of locomotive while being cleared of ashes. Lane v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 107 App. Div. 166. Duty of intestate or fellow servant to flag backing train. Keefe v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 109 App. Div. 180. Practicability of a rule for coupling defective cars may be testi- fied to by expert. Freemont v. Boston & Maine R. R., 111 App. Div. 831. When neglect of engineer to give signal is that of a fellow servant. Rich v. Pa. R. R., 112 App. Div. 818. Intended passenger making no inquiry as to whereabouts of train assumes risk of trying to find train himself. VanOstrand v. D. & H. Co., 112 App. Div. 783. When not negligent toeleave freight train between station and passenger tracks. VanOstrand v. D. & H. Co., 112 App. Div. 783. Right to run trains paramount to that of rights of licensee. Rosenthal v. N. Y. & Susquehanna & W. R. R., 112 App. Div. 431. Where cattle of grantee, bound to maintain fences, are injured, he cannot recover. Satterly v. Erie R. R. Co., 113 App. Div. 462. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 467 Railroad—Continued Plaintiff must show that defects existed in car at time it was delivered to the company by owner. Finan v. Valvoline Oil Co. & Erie R. R., 51 Misc. 292. Right of action for injuries from defects in car in possession of defendant company. Finan v. Valvoline Oil Co. & Erie R. R., 51 Misc. 292. Relief fund agreement to accept benefit funds under, not void as against public policy. Colaizzi v. Pennsylvania R. R., 143 App. Div. 638. Relief fund for employees, effeet of acceptance of benefits under. Colaizzi v. Pennsylvania R. R., 143 App. Div. 638. A guard only required to do what such a man would have done confronted by sudden dangerous conditions. Sheehan v. Nassau Electric Co., 143 App. Div. 621. Derailment of car raises presumption of negligence. Braun v. Union R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 566. When not obliged to supply servants to assist passengers in alighting, yet a servant assuming to assist renders company liable for his negligence. Hanlon v. Central R. R. of New Jersey, 187 N. Y. 73. When signals unnecessary. Grathwohl v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 116 App. Div. 176. Not liable for injuries received from the manner in which train is controlled when controlled by third party. Burns v. D. & H. Co., 116 App. Div. 111. Defendant bound to use reasonable care as to employee on track after working hours. Best v. N. Y. C. & H. RB. R. R., 117 App. Div. 739. When defendant liable for change in train schedules. Baldwin v. Schenectady R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 441. 468 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Railroad—Continued When negligence may be found for placing dynamite in car not having air brakes, etc. Kelly v. D. L. & W. R. R., 118 App. Div. 432. Stopping of train and calling out station before reaching station. Wolford v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 118 App. Div. 553. Negligence of train man in calling out station. Wolford v. N. Y. C.& H. R. R. R., 118 App. Div. 553. Negligence not imputed because road has failed.to adopt same methods for operating that other roads have in use, if its method is reasonably safe. Pearsall ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 189 N. Y. 474. Not necessary to provide a train man at each end of car, passenger alighting from platform in the dark, railroad not liable. Bartle v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 72. Error to refuse to charge if plaintiff knew of opening between car and platform, there was no necessity of warning. Woolsey v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 123 App. Div. 631. Recovery had by trespasser if engineer guilty of wanton negli- gence. Feldman v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 142 App. Div. 339. Injury from starting train, proof must show movement differing from ordinary movement. Goold v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 59 Mise. 36. Railroad knowing pergon liable to be on track at certain points must manage trains with reference to that. Obenland v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 127 App. Div. 418. Experienced foreman guilty of contributory negligence by walk- ing on track. Brady v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 127 App. Div. 347. Track repairer at intersection of electric and steam tracks has right to be on electric tracks. Malizia v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 202. A DIGEST. OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 469 Railroad—Continued A call of “All aboard” not heard by plaintiff, is not: invitation to board train. Newmark v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 127 App. Div. 58. Engineer assumes risk from derailment due to improper location of signals. ‘Pearsall v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 128 App. Div. 397. Agreement as to speed at crossing between roads is proper evi- dence although not signed by employees. Cox v. D. & H. Co., 128 App. Div. 363. When failure to use interlocking switches, not negligence. Cox v. D. & H. Co., 128 App. Div. 363. Where employee on being warned stepped in front of train, negligence is for the jury. Laplaca v. Lake Shore & M. 8. R. R., 127 App. Div. 843. Train backing with no light or warning, gross negligence. Kurt v. Lake Shore & M. 8. R. R., 127 App. Div. 838. Failure to see train on clear day when walking near track, con- tributory negligence. Dangelo v. Lake Shore & M.S. R. R., 127 App. Div. 835. Brakeman justified in relying on telltales of railroad to warn of nearness to bridge. Harrison v. N. Y. C. & H. RB. R. R., 127 App. Div. 804. Proof of damages by fire from railroad. Nichols v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 61 Misc. 195. Person operating temporary railroad not negligent for running over infant by backing of train. Batchelor v. Degnon Realty & Terminal Improvement Co., 141 App. Div. 879. Telegraph operator fellow employee of trackman on railroad. House v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 128 App. Div. 756. 470 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Railroad—Continued Not negligent to establish rules where none are used on other roads, and none could have been effective. Bell v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 128 App. Div. 730. Negligence of railroad maintaining station platform, question for jury. ‘ Bartle v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 193 N. Y. 362. Speed of trains, warning. Brown v. Long Island R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 649. Safe place to alight. Reuter v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 141 App. Div. 669. Negligence in failing to employ flagman, question for jury. McCherry v. Snare & Triest Co., 180 App. Div. 241. Collision with obstruction placed by contractor. McCherry v. Snare & Triest Co., 130 App. Div. 241. Not necessary to station flagman at any point unless required by ordinance or statute. McCherry v. Snare & Triest Co., 130 App. Div. 241. Injury to brakeman, defective telltales. Harrison v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 195 N. Y. 86. Must exercise reasonable care in accordance with purpose for which premises are used. Paulding v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 132 App. Div. 68. * When person on platform not chargeable with contributory negligence and not bound to look and listen. Paulding v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 182 App. Div. 68. Passenger assuming risk of boarding train. Wehn »v. Interborough R. T. Co., 182 App. Div. 841. Car inspector; contributory negligence on occasion of an injury. Brainerd v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R. Co., 132 App. Div. 498. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 471 Railroad—Continued When no question as to assumption of risk. Brainerd v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R. Co., 1382 App. Div. 498. Safe place for passenger to alight. Catterson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 182 App. Div. 399.. Failure of engineer to obey rules. Biehl v. Erie R. R., 182 App. Div. 364. Foreman’s failure to give warning of train. Inglese v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 1383 App. Div. 198. Contributory negligence for jury. Rounds v. Syracuse & Suburban R. R., 134 App. Div. 15. Collision between trolley and vehicle. Rounds v. Syracuse & Suburban R. R., 134 App. Div. 15. Whether signals given in time or not. Balch v. N. Y. C. & H.R. R. R., 1384 App. Div. 1. Duty of railroad. Speck v. International R. R. Co., 1383 App. Div. 802. Station agent guilty of contributory negligence and injury. Hallock v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R., 197 N. Y. 450. Injury to animal on tracks. Davison v. D. L. & W. R. R., 184 App. Div. 872. Duty to fence tracks. Davison v. D. L. & W. R. R., 1384 App. Div. 872. Attempting to board moving train. Dwyer v. N. Y. C. R. R., 186 App. Div. 87. Driving on railroad tracks. Van Haaren v. Long Island R. R. Co., 186 App. Div. 15. In case of obstruction reasonable time must be given to ascer- tain obstruction and flag other trains. Hammond »v. D., L. & W. R. R., 140 App. Div. 810. 472 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Railroad—Continued Res ipsa loquitur, derailment of train. Flansburg v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 186 App. Div. 551. Duty to passengers and employees, difference between. Henson v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 194 N. Y. 205. Switchman in yard, not question for jury as to'safe place to work. Utess v. Erie R. R. Co., 181 App. Div. 447. In absence of evidence to the contrary, the court will assume it is not the business of other employees to assist in handling bag- gage. Cannon v. Fargo, 147 App. Div. 51. While a railroad may operate trains on a street its use must be reasonable as other persons may travel on the street. Sheldon v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 396. Railroad Crossing Duties of flagman at crossing. Carnochan »v. Erie R. R.,'73 Misc. 131. When failure of proof as to looking is fatal although approaching train could not have been discovered. Brown v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 87 App. Div. 206. What is a street crossing. Mauer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 87 App. Div. 119. Duty of flagman at street crossing confined to the limits of street intersection. ° Strickland ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 88 App. Div. 367. When question of decedent’s contributory negligence in crossing track should be submitted to jury. Stillings ». Metropolitan St. R. R., 177 N. Y. 344. When crossing does not require active vigilance to protect one using it. LeDuc v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 92 App. Div. 107. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 473. Railroad Crossing—Continued Failure to show looking and listening; proof required of freedom from contributory negligence. McSweeney v. Erie R. R., 93 App. Div. 496. { When negligence not excused by noise of passage of other trains. Stack v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 96 App. Div. 575. Negligence in crossing when view obstructed by smoke and affected by noise of trains. Keller v. Erie R. R., 98 App. Div. 550. Permission to cross at place not a public crossing makes warning of trains necessary. Keller v. Erie R. R., 98 App. Div. 550. What proof as to plaintiff’s stopping and listening for train makes question of contributory negligence for jury. Morse v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 102 App. Div. 495. What evidence of alleged crossing is insufficient to establish duty to give warning. . Clarke v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 104 App. Div. 167. One crossing not excused by reliance on train giving ordinary signals. Larsen v. U. 8S. Mortgage & Trust Co., 104 App. Div. 76. To establish absence of contributory negligence plaintiff should testify expressly that he did not see train. Seidman v. Long Island R. R., 104 App. Div. 4. When party crossing track is not negligent in failing to look and listen. Lewis v. Erie R. R., 105 App. Div. 292. Effect of party injured having seen approaching train. Cranch v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 107 App. Div. 341. Proof required that one. passing across railroad crossing was free from contributory negligence. May York v. N. Y. O. & W. R. R., 108 App. Div. 126. 474 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Railroad Crossing—Continued When error to admit evidence of pass. Tingley v. Long Island R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 793. Collision with train; when negligence and contributory negli- gence are questions for the jury. Nelson v. Long Island R. R., 109 App. Div. 626. Care in crossing track though no signal given by approaching train. Fisher v. Central Vermont R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 449. Duty as to maintaining gates is discharged by reasonable care in construction and inspection. Recktenwald v. Erie R. R., 114 App. Div. 490. Duty as to maintaining gates in working condition. Recktenwald v. Erie R. R., 114 App. Div. 490. Erroneous instruction as to driving across tracks in front of car. Martin v. 42nd St. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R., 54 Misc. 645. Negligence cannot be imputed because road has failed to adopt the same methods of operation at crossing that other roads have, if its method is reasonably safe. Pearsall v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 189 N. Y. 474. When failure of passenger to look and listen at crossing is not contributory negligence as a matter of law. Noakes v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 121 App. Div. 716. Rule as to looking before crossing applies to passenger. Noakes v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 121 App. Div. 716. No recovery by licensee unless wanton negligence shown. Smetanka v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 123 App. Div. 323. Duty of automobile passenger to look governed by age, etc. Read v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 123 App. Div. 228. Error to refuse to charge that if decedent saw it was necessary A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 475 Railroad Crossing—Continued for him to run in order to get across ahead of car he was guilty of contributory negligence. VanDenbout v. Rochester R. R. Co., 202 N. Y. 61. Failure to look in direction of train; failure to use care. Cunningham v. Del., Lackawanna & W. R. R., 142 App. Div. 303. Whether raising of gates was an invitation to pass, etc., ques- tion for jury. Pulcino v. Long Island R. R. Co., 125 App. Div. 629. Although gates were up decedent must use due care, question for jury. Pulcino v. Long Island R. R. Co., 125 App. Div. 629. Where decedent looked and listened, he could not anticipate a speed in violation of an ordinance by approaching train. Jordan v. Erie R. R., 126 App. Div. 919. Plaintiff after looking struck by train, question for jury. Spannknebel v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 127 App. Div. 345. When person passing around train blocking crossing, is not a trespasser under railroad law. Kurt v. Lake Shore & M.S. R. R., 127 App. Div. 838. Plaintiff looked, listened, horse shied, flagman absent, question of contributory negligence for jury. Robinson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 128 App. Div. 677. Person crossing in front of engine, guilty of contributory negli- gence as a matter of law. O’Brien v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 129 App. Div. 288. Assumption of risk at common law by person crossing private railroad though no signal given, he having knowledge of the place. Matrusciello v. Milliken Bros., 141 App. Div. 769. Public crossing used many years makes reasonable care necessary. Lamphear v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 194 N. Y. 172. 476 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Railroad Crossing—Continued Jury to say as to sufficient warning, ringing bell, blowing whistle. Brown v. Long Island R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 649. Speed of trains and warning at railroad crossing. Brown v. Long Island R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 649. + Collision at crossing not properly guarded. Gorman v. N. Y., Chicago & St. Lawrence R. R., 194 N. Y. 488. Crossing not properly guarded. Gorman v. N. Y., Chicago & St. Lawrence R. R., 194 N. Y. 488. Collision at crossing, plaintiff to show due care. Enders v. Brooklyn Union Elevated R. R., 131 App. Div. 170. Trespassers; person attempting to cross outside of established crossing. Neuberger v. Long Island R. R. Co., 181 App. Div. 885. Failure to give warning. Foley v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 182 App. Div. 506. Collision of wagon at crossing. Normand v. Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 474. Collision at crossing, no signals or bell, question for jury. Moore v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 396. Collision at street crossing, no bell or signal. Wood v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R. R., 133 App. Div. 270. Collision at crossing, train and automobile. Loomis v. Brooklyn Heiglfts R. R., 133 App. Div. 247. Collision at grade crossing. Balch v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 184 App. Div. 1. Rules of evidence as to hearing signals. Foley v. N. Y. Central R. R., 197 N. Y. 430. Full speed over crossing without signals. Potter v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 184 App. Div. 827. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 477 Railroad Crossing—Continued Collision at crossing. Potter ». N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 184 App. Div. 827. Crossing tracks. Kozak v. Erie R. R., 185 App. Div. 726. A driver having looked for car and seeing none, in attempting to cross has a right to expect that he will be given a warning and is not obliged to look all the time while crossing. Hickey, Kaplau & Wiltzek v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 693. Proper for Court to charge that it was the duty of intestate to look and listen only in the event that the jury should find from the evidence in the case that it would have availed him had he looked and listened. Parsons v. Syracuse, Binghamton & N. Y. R. R. Co., 205 N. Y. 226. Railroad Law Railroad law creates a new rule of liability. Schradin v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 124 App. Div. 705. — Liability as to cattle and guards. Bateman v. The Rutland R. R. Co., 126 App. Div. 511. Motorman and conductor are vice principals of railroad with respect to their individual duties. Simons v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 142 App. Div. 36. One in physical control of train, signal or telegraph is vice prin- cipal of railroad, not co-employee. Vroom v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 129 App. Div. 858. Railroad law need not be pleaded being a public statute. Murtagh v. Joline, 70 Mise. 251 Engineer fellow servant of brakeman and vice principal when in physical control of moving train. Breed v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 131 App. Div. 492. 478 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Railroad Law—Continued Defects in condition of car prima facie evidence of negligence. Forton v. Crosstown St. R. R. Co., 63 Misc. 237. Railroad law and vice principals. Hintze v. N. Y. Central R. R., 140 App. Div. 852. Section 42 construed. Hintze v. N. Y. Central R. R., 140 App. Div. 852. Real Property Where owner expressly or by invitation invites a person to come on property he is liable for resulting injury from existing defect. Stern v. Miller, 60 Misc. 103. Whether owner of unfenced lot guilty of negligence when build- ing a fire from which child is burned, is question for jury. Specht v. Waterbury Co., 70 Misc. 404. Unenclosed lot not an invitation to enter. Middleton v. Reutler, 141 App. Div. 517. Receiver Receiver of railroad liable to one injured after a confirmation of a sale of road. Larsen v. U. 8. Mortgage & Trust Co., 104 App. Div. 76. Release Facts insufficient to show release procured by fraud. Blair v. U. & M. V. R. B., 112 App. Div. 609. A person executing cannot recover until relieved from its effect. Blair v. Utica & Mohawk Valley R. R., 112 App. Div. 609. Objection to release obtained by fraud cannot be taken for first time on appeal. Ambellan v. Barcalo Mfg. Co., 118 App. Div. 547. When execution of the release precludes a recovery. Ambellan v. Barcalo Mfg. Co., 118 App. Div. 547. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 479 Release—Continued When verdict that release was obtained by fraud, etc., against weight of evidence. Shaw v. D. L. & W. R. R., 126 App. Div. 210. Repairs Error to receive evidence of repairs after accident. Quinn v. City of N. Y., 145 App. Div. 195. Effect of employment of mechanic in repairs, not an engineer. Young v. Mason Stable Co., 96 App. Div. 305. A promise to repair defect inducing servant to work is a contract and master assumes the risk. Citrone v. O’Rourke Engineering & Construction Co., 113 Apr. Div. 518. Evidence of repairs after accident improper. Wilkes v. Gallagher, 51 Misc. 654. Where master agrees to repair machinery after certain time and instructs servant to continue, master assumes risk from time of promise until expiration of time specified. - Tannhauser v. Uptegrove & Brother, 114 App. Div. 764. Evidence of repairs subsequent to accident incompetent. Loughlin v. Brassil, 187 N. Y. 128. When structure or machine out of repair, there is no presumption by lapse of time that repairs have been made. Mansfield v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 199. Error to admit evidence that defendant repaired defect after accident. Mackey v. City of N. Y., 121 App. Div. 473. When proof of repairs after accident improper. Wren v. Kennedy Valve Mfg. Co., 122 App. Div. 289. Res Adjudicata Falls. Reris v. Haines, 1384 App. Div. 402. 480 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Reversal Reversal as to one does not reverse as to all defendants where acts of negligence separate. Draper v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 124 App. Div. 351. Res Gestz Declarations to wife just before accident as to no danger, ad- missible as part of. Witmer v. Buffalo & Niagara Falls E. C. & P. Co., 112 App. Div. 698. Res Ipsa Loquitur Defendant to be liable must have absolute control of machinery. Dalzell v. N. Y., N. H. R. R. Co., 136 App. Div. 329. When rule applies and defendant must give explanation. Kahn v. Burrette, 42 Misc. 541. When the rule calls for defendant company to explain cause of defect. Klinger v. United Traction Co., 92 App. Div. 100. When rule applies to slipping on platform. Barnes v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 42 Mise. 622. When rule applies to flooding of loft in building. Kahn v. Burrette, 42 Misc. 541. What a question for jury under all the circumstances. Young v. Mason Stable*Co., 96 App. Div. 305. Facts throwing burden of proof on defendant. Williams v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 97 App. Div. 133. When rule does not apply in fall of elevator. Stackpole v. Wray, 99 App. Div. 262. Prima facie proof of negligence under this rule. Ferrick v. Eidlitz, 123 App. Div. 587. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 481 Res Ipsa Loquitur—Continued Rule does not exempt plaintiff from burden of proving affirma- tively, negligence or circumstances from which negligence is inferred. | Duhme v. Hamburg American Packet Co., 184 N. Y. 404. When defendant has the burden of explaining accident. Weir v. Union R. R. Co. of N. Y., 112 App. Div. 109. When rule applies to elevator and defendant’s negligence for the jury. Samuels v. McKesson, 113 App. Div. 497. Fall of pile of lumber. Nigro v. Willson, 50 Misc. 656. Even where this rule applies plaintiff must show freedom from contributory negligence. Meaney v. Hurwitz, 115 App. Div. 572. Derailment of car raises presumption of negligence. Braun v. Union R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 566. Rule applies where hoist is used by railroad and defendant’s negligence question for jury. Haggblad v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 117 App. Div. 838. The maxim does not cast on defendant the burden of proof by preponderance of evidence of freedom from negligence. Cunningham ». Dady, 119 App. Div. 89. Rule applies where highway sinks under weight of pedestrian passing over a filled excavation. Cunningham »v. Dady, 119 App. Div. 89. Where accident might have happened through fault of persons other than defendant, rule does not apply. Ristau v. Coe Co., 120 App. Div. 478. Plaintiff need not show particular defect which caused accident. Ristau v. Coe Co., 120 App. Div. 478. 482 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Res Ipsa Loquitur—Continued Rule applies where trestle used to convey products to factory collapses. Ristau v. Coe Co., 120 App. Div. 478. Plaintiff has burden of proof, presumption only establishes a prima facie case for plaintiff. Cunningham v. Dady, 191 N. Y. 152. Rule not necessarily inapplicable to case of master and servant. Robinson v. Consolidated Gas Co., 57 Misc. 155. Sign of defendant falls from 5th story of building and injures pedestrian, rule applies. Feder v. Friedman, 71 Misc. 134. Res ipsa loquitur rarely applies between master and servant. Schlappendorf v. American R. R. Traffic Co., 142 App. Div. 554. Sudden starting of machine makes a case under this rule. Keenan v. McAdams & Cartright Elevator Co., 58 Misc. 371. When rule of res ipsa loquitur applies to fall of merchandise in store. Higgins v. Ruppert, 124 App. Div. 530. Negligence inferred from the accident and attending circum- stances. Eaton v. N. Y. C. & H.R. R. B., 125 App. Div. 54. Rule can rarely be invoked between employer and employee. Lane v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 125 App. Div. 808. Rule applies where tle nature of accident suggests some defect. Dittman v. Edison Elec. Illuminating Co., 125 App. Div. 691. Not the accident but the manner and circumstances of it that call for application of rule. Losie v. Del. & Hudson Co., 142 App. Div. 214. Plaintiff must prove negligence affirmatively or circumstances from which it may be properly inferred. Losie v. Del. & Hudson Co., 142 App. Div. 214. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 483 Res Ipsa Loquitur—Continued Rule applies where train runs from main track on to siding, no intervention of third parties being proven. Van Inwegen v. Erie R. R. Co., 126 App. Div. 297. Rule only applies where accident could only have happened in ordinary course, except by negligence of defendant. Elliott ». Brooklyn Heights R. R., 127 App. Div. 300. Plaintiff receiving shock from electric pole owned and controlled by defendant, rule applies, burden on defendant to rebut negligence. Moglia v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 243. Rule not applied where no negligence on part of defendant. Keenan v. McAdams & Cartright Elevator Co., 129 App. Div. 117. Rule does not apply to unexplained accident. Eaton v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 195 N. Y. 267. No presumption that defendants failed to discharge duty of reasonable care. Ferrick v. Eidlitze, 195 N. Y. 248. Fall of roof. Ferrick v. Eidlitze, 195 N. Y. 248. Elevator accident. Fraham v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 131 App. Div. 747. When rule does not apply. McCormick v. Interborough R. T. Co., 182 App. Div. 703. Fall of pulley from shaft. Griffin v. Flank, 132 App. Div. 334. Where rule does not apply. Scott v. Nauss Bros. Co., 141 App. Div. 255. Street railroad. Levine v. Brooklyn, Queens Co. & Suburban R. R., 134 App. Div. 606. Where plaintiff shows injury while walking on street by fall of glass from defendant’s building, a prima facie cause is made out 484 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Res Ipsa Loquitur—Continued and the burden is on the defendant to show freedom from contribu- tory negligence. Pearson v. Ehrich, 148 App. Div. 680. Proof proper under plaintiff’s rebuttal. Pearson v. Ehrich, 148 App. Div. 680. Even where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, the burden of establishing negligence rests with the plaintiff. Schactele v. Bristor, 148 App. Div. 843. Res ipsa loquitur. Herbert v. Hudson River Electric Co., 1836 App. Div. 107. Passenger injured by fall of window. Waldman v. Brooklyn Union Elevated R. R., 136 App. Div. 376. Where rule does not apply to one slipping on floor of bowling alley. Stelter v. Cordes, 146 App. Div. 300. Reopening Case Failure to move for verdict a second time after reopening. Weizinger v. Erie R. R., 106 App. Div. 411. Respondeat Superior Injury to prospective tenant in building being constructed. Boyd vw. U. 8. Mortgage & Trust Co., 94 App. Div. 413. Rule rests on right 8f employer to select, direct and control servants. Moest v. City of Buffalo & County of Erie, 116 App. Div. 657. Respondeat superior. Thomas v. Springer, 1384 App. Div. 640. Applies to municipal or governmental corporations as to their duties. Higbie v. Board of Education, 122 App. Div. 483. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 485 Risks What risks assumed by servant in master’s employment. Jenkins v. Phoenix Construction Co., 145 App. Div. 183. Assumption of risk, when it need not be pleaded. Ehrenfried v. Lackawanna Iron & Steel Co., 89 App. Div. 130. When switchman assumes risk of faulty design of switch and its being out of order. Loushay v. Erie R. R. Co., 95 App. Div. 102. Assumption of risk by employee; rule as to. Schermerhorn v. Glens Falls Cement Co., 94 App. Div. 600. When continuance of work is not an assumption of risk. Alleot v. Kirkham, 101 App. Div. 77. Employee not presumed to assume a risk where expert knowledge is necessary to ascertain it. Nelson v. City of N. Y., 101 App. Div. 18. Assumption of risk under employers’ liability act, and case pre- sented for jury. Vaughn v. Glens Falls Cement Co., 105 App. Div. 136. Assumption of risk by employee in selecting his own way of egress from property. Davitt v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 106 App. Div. 567. The law does not regard a fanciful degree of safety. Cunningham »v. Peirce, 112 App. Div. 65. What risks an employee assumes. Wynkoop v. Ludlow Valve Mfg. Co., 112 App. Div. 729. Question of inherent risk of employment is for the Jury under employers’ liability act. McBride v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 113 App. Div. 821. Assumption of obvious risk by employee, question for jury. Kiernan v. Hidlitz, 115 App. Div. 141. Where master agrees to make repairs after certain time and 486 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Risks—Continued requests servant to continue, master assumes risk from time of promise until expiration of time specified. Tannhauser v. Uptegrove & Brother, 114 App. Div. 764. Not incumbent on master to give instructions as to self-evident risk. : Radley v. Shopiro, 114 App. Div. 659. Where master agrees if servant will work he will remedy defect on a certain day, he assumes risk from time of promise until after time of repair. Swarts v. Wilson Mfg. Co., 115 App. Div. 739. When obvious risks are assumed by employee, hidden dangers known to employer not assumed. Carey v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 247. Risks which brakemen must guard themselves against. Clark v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 115 App. Div. 813. Assumption of risk is matter of contract and does not apply to third persons. Poole v. American Linseed Co., 119 App. Div. 136. Assumption of risk on master’s assurance of safety. Graham v. Van Hauten, 53 Misc. 643. Although assumption of risk is for jury, under the act, verdict inay be set aside if against evidence. Kellogg v. N. Y. Edison Co., 120 App. Div. 410. The question of assurfing risk of an unsafe place is for the jury. Ortolano v. Degnon Contracting Co., 120 App. Div. 59. Employees in mine do not assume risk where master has failed to support roof as required by statute. Arras v. Standard Plaster Co., 121 App. Div. 61. Railroad employee does not assume risk of train overturning because of defective track. Strong v. Rutland R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 391. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 487 Risks—Continued Assumption of risk is a question for the jury where plaintiff was an illiterate laborer and required to work in the place where he did. Ward v. Edison Elec. Hluminating Co., 124 App. Div. 22. Servant assumes necessary or ordinary risks. Logerto v. Central Building Co., 123 App. Div. 840. Plaintiff thrown off guard by foreman’s statement that no gloves were needed for the work. Dutcher v. Rockland Electric Co., 123 App. Div. 765. A servant employed to run engine does not assume under act risk of injury from uncovered cogs on brick machine. Perrotta v. Richmond Brick Co., 123 App. Div. 626. A servant does not assume risks if master has failed to provide reasonably safe appliances; it is a question of fact. Perrotta v. Richmond Brick Co., 123 App. Div. 626. Risks assumed by servant are those which occur after due per- formance by employer of his duty. Anderson v. Milliken Brothers, 123 App. Div. 614. Where place itself is a risk, although servant may be ignorant of exact result of contact with third rail. James v. Cranford, 123 App. Div. 558. Assumption of risk under promise of employee to repair defect is for the jury. ; Hartman »v. Berlin & Jones Envelope Co., 71 Misc. 30. Risk assumed by servant. Wynne »v. Continental Asphalt Paving Co., 61 Misc. 94. Whether deceased assumed risk, for jury. Trentacoste v. Cronin, 132 App. Div. 907. Necessary and obvious risks. Hurley v. Olcott, 184 App. Div. 631. 488 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Risks—Continued Person with knowledge of danger and the situation voluntarily assumes the risk. Dixon v. N. Y., 0. & W. R. R., 198 N. Y. 58. _ Facts showing plaintiff did not assume the risk and was not guilty of contributory negligence. ‘ Impellizzieri v. Cranford, 148 App. Div. 758. Risk Assumption of risk in blasting. Wecker v. Brooklyn, Queens County & L. I. R. R., 136 App. Div. 340 or 341. Assumption of risk. Mitcheltree v. Stair & Wilbur, 135 App. Div. 210. Assumption of risk, labor law. Simpson v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 141 App. Div. 148. Assumption of risk, contractor’s negligence. Riggs v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 134 App. Div. 672. Assumption of risk, for jury. Finkelstein v. Kramer, 133 App. Div. 565. Assumption of risk, where safe place had been provided. Bria v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 183 App. Div. 346. Assumption of risk for jury. Pepe v. Utica Pipe Foundry Co., 132 App. Div. 458. e + Assumption of risk by passenger on seeing railroad gates closed. Wehn ». Interborough R. T. Co., 132 App. Div. 841. Assumption of risk by employee when acting as agent or vice principal. Gombert v. McKay, 201 N. Y. 27. When plaintiff knew machine in motion he assumed the risk. Toye v. United Dressed Beef Co., 141 App. Div. 332. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 489 Risk—Continued Assumption of risk attendant on voluntary action of injured person. Jackson v. Greene, 134 App. Div. 918. Recipient of charity assumes the risk of the act of donor’s servant. Wallace v. Casey Co., 182 App. Div. 35. Assumption of risk question for jury. Quigg v. Post & McCord, 131 App. Div. 155. Assumption of risk after warning of danger. Lumsden v. Thompson Scenic R. R., 180 App. Div. 209. Assumption of risk by voluntary performance of work. Wittgren v. Wells Brothers Co., 141 App. Div. 693. Risk assumed by continued use. Evans v. Eastman Kodak Co., 129 App. Div. 768. Assumption of risk in common law action, question not neces- sarily for jury. Matrusciello v. Milliken Bros. (inc.), 141 App. Div. 769. Where plaintiff assumed open obvious risk. Feola v. Orange Co. Road Construction Co., 129 App. Div. 435. Employee of two years assumes risk of falling into opening in factory floor. Bushtis v. Catskill Cement Co., 128 App. Div. 780. At common law servant employed on defective machine knowing defects assumes risk. Meigel v. Crandall Oil & Putty Mfg. Co., 141 App. Div. 828. Party serving notice under employers’ act entitled to its benefits as to risks. Proctor v. Rockville Center Milling & Construction Co., 141 App. Div. 900. Where complaint made by employee and assurance of safety given, the risk of injury is assumed by employer. Lobasco v. Moxie Nerve Food Co., 127 App. Div. 677. 490 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Risk—Continued Under employers’ act where safety guards had been removed, jury could find plaintiff did not assume risk. Travis v. Haan, 128 App. Div. 77. Where defect in way causing fall, question of risk and contribu- tory negligence for jury. Knezevich v. Bush Terminal Co., 127 App. Div. 54. Servant at common law assumes risk incident to employment which exists or arises notwithstanding ordinary care of master. Reinertsen v. Erie R. R. Co., 142 App. Div. 31. Servant assumes risks obvious and discoverable by ordinary care. Reinertsen v. Erie R. R. Co., 142 App. Div. 31. Servant knowing of master’s failure to make and enforce rules after employment, must be given fair opportunity and time, etc., to observe and act upon it. Reinertsen v. Erie R. R. Co., 142 App. Div. 31. Where foreman of experience knew opening was unguarded a finding that he did not assume risk is contrary to evidence. Baumann »v. Schrumpf, 142 App. Div. 68. Where in tunnel excavation superintendent is mistaken in judg- ment as to character of an obstruction, employee assumes risk; master not liable. Martin v. Degnon Contracting Co.,. 127 App. Div. 85. Servant objecting to scaffold and assured of its safety does not assume risk. m Schmidt v. Rohn, 127 App. Div. 220. Servant had right to assume that roof of mine was properly supported. Tanne v. U. 8. Gypsum Co., 126 App. Div. 244. Plaintiff crossing street had right to assume that defendant would use care in running car. Boyce v. N. Y. City R. R., 126 App. Div. 248. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 491 Risk—Continued When incidental risks due to master’s negligence that servant does not assume. Gorman v. Millikan, 142 App. Div. 207. Employee did not assume risk which alter ego of defendant assured him he would not be subject to. Foster v. Crooker Co., 142 App. Div. 268. Employee assumes risk of using simple instrument. Kelly v. National Starch Co., 142 App. Div. 286. It is presumed employee did not assume risk when master has not complied with labor law. Graves v. Stickley Co., 125 App. Div. 132. Burden of proof on master, assumption of risk a question of implied contract. Graves v. Stickley Co., 125 App. Div. 132. Engineer continuing employment assumes resulting risk from construction of building. Ware v. Ithaca St. R. R. Co., 125 App. Div. 323. Where paving work not completed plaintiff has no right to assume there were no holes or defects. McHugh »v. Interstate Paving Co., 121 App. Div. 517. Tenant assumes risk, when examining premises and fails to wait for janitor to show the premises. Robinson v. Crimmins, 120 App. Div. 250. Person knowing of existence of vats in floor assumes risk of passing over floor at night. Krug v. American Sugar Refining Co., 120 App. Div. 537. At common law servant assumes risk arising from negligence of fellow servants. Conyes v. Oceanic Amusement Co., 202 N. Y. 408. Where master agrees: to remedy defect on a certain day, he assumes risk from time of promise until after time of repair. Swarts v. Wilson Mfg. Co., 115 App. Div. 738. 492 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Risk—Continued Risks which can be avoided if master performs duty are not assumed by servant. Lynch v. American Linseed Co., 113 App. Div. 502. When question for jury; shoveling grain into elevator. Paul v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 113 App. Div. 515. Master may contract to relieve servant permanently or for limited time from risk of employment. Citrone v. O’Rourke Engineering Construction Co., 113 App. Div. 518. Assumption of risk by contract of master begins at the time of the contract. Citrone v. O’Rourke Engineering Construction Co., 113 App. Div. 518. Assumption of obvious risk may be waived by continuing in em- ployment with knowledge of facts. Rooney v. Brogan Construction Co., 113 App. Div. 818. Rules Rules must be made and enforced to protect employees. Anable v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 138 App. Div. 380. Burden of proof on plaintiff to prove that defendant failed to make and enforce rules. Kennedy v. Wanamaker, 145 App. Div. 428. Instructions and methods of work. Tribastoni v. Rodgers & Hagerty (inc.), 72 Misc. 76. @ Rules prepared after accident. Quinn v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 91 App. Div. 489. Expert testimony that certain rules were necessary, incompetent. Lane v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 93 App. Div. 40. When one of two rules sufficient negligence cannot be predicated on failure to adopt both. Lane v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 93 App. Div. 40. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 493 Rules—Continued Obligation to make rules as to starting machinery under repair. Austin v. Fisher Tanning Co., 96 App. Div. 550. When jury may not determine as to promulgating rules. Koszlowski v. American Locomotive Co., 96 App. Div. 40. Duty of employer to make rule that two men must operate winch. Johnson v. Prince Line Limited, 104 App. Div. 157. When an employee will not be assumed to have known of ab- sence of rules. Lane v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 107 App. Div. 166. Duty of railroad to make rules preventing movement of locomo- tive. Lane v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 107 App. Div. 166. When sufficient for controlling train and coupling cars. Keating v. Manhattan R. R., 110 App. Div. 108. When a question of fact, whether it was duty of railroad to promulgate written rule and whether its failure to do so was negli- gence. McCoy v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 185 App. Div. 276. Proper to receive opinion of expert as to rules. Freemont v. Boston & Maine R. R., 111 App. Div. 831. Failure of defendant to promulgate proper rules. Freemont v. Boston & Maine R. R., 111 App. Div. 831. Where infringement of rule was not the proximate cause of the accident. Fanizzi v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R. Co., 113 App. Div. 440. No recovery for failure to enforce rules where defendant could not anticipate rule would be broken. Fanizzi v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R. Co., 113 App. Div. 440. 494 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Rules—Continued Rules are not necessary where it is not shown what rule could have protected plaintiff. Severson v. Hill-Warner-Fitch Co., 116 App. Div. 108. When negligence may be found from failure of master to conform to rules. Baldwin v. Schenectady R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 441. The necessity for rules must be known to the master from the nature of the business. Deebach v. Gair Co., 143 App. Div. 489. For jury to say whether defendant negligent in failing to enforce rule as to warning of approaching trains. Dayton v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 119 App. Div. 32. Form of submitting questions as to rules to a jury; sufficiency of rules. McCarthy v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 189 N. Y. 170. Failure to adopt and enforce rules for safety of trains. McCarthy v. Pa. R. R. Co., 189 N. Y. 170. Liability of railroad for failing to make rules to guard employees not changed by testimony of dispatcher that his custom was to give oral instructions. McCoy v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 119 App. Div. 531. Error to submit question of failure to make rules for machines, governing machinery, unlgss there is proof that such rules might have prevented accident. Durkos v. Chelsea Jute Mills, 120 App. Div. 561. The test is, could master foresee the rule was necessary to pro- tect the servant. Wolfinger v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 121 App. Div. 140. When recovery cannot be had on failure to promulgate rules. Kelly v. American Locomotive Co., 121 App. Div. 81. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 495 Rules—Continued No recovery for failure to make rules where no proof that others had adopted rules. McGowan »v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 143 App. Div. 1. Not error for employee to violate rule if it is not called to his attention. Strong v. Rutland R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 391. In simple work, rules or inspection need not be an incident as to duty to furnish safe place to work. Logerto v. Central Building Co., 123 App. Div. 840. Test of negligence in failing to promulgate rules. Johnson v. Prince Line, (Limited), 123 App. Div. 547. When master not negligent in failing to provide a rule requiring additional servants, when others temporarily absent. Johnson v. Prince Line (Limited), 123 App. Div. 547. Violation of rule as to carrying dynamite on train; when result of its observance pure speculation. Kelly v. D., L. & W. R. R., 192 N. Y. 203. Master failing to establish and enforce rules; question for jury. McDonnell v. Robinson Co., 136 App. Div. 598. Question for jury whether rules to be adopted by master. Berandino v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 186 App. Div. 577. Failure to make rules must be pleaded and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Edgar v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 146 App. Div. 541. Safety If defendant provide reasonably safe means and competent fellow servants plaintiff cannot recover. Conyes v. Oceanic Amusement Co., 202 N. Y. 408. No recovery where unsafe place is made during progress of work. Lewis v. Gehlen, 136 App. Div. 855. 496 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Safety—Continued Recommendation of state railroad commission as to introduction of safeguards. Baruth v. Poughkeepsie & W. F. El. R. R., 89 App. Div. 324. When master has a continuing duty to keep structure safe. Berthelson v. Gabler, 111 App. Div. 142. For jury to determine as to safety of place to work. Neagle v. Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. R., 185 App. Div. 270. Master not bound to adopt the safest or best known methods. Ozogar v. Pierce, Butler & Pierce Mfg. Co., 184 App. Div. 800. Safe Appliances Reasonably safe appliances such as a prudent man would use. Heiser v. Cincinnati Abbatoir Co., 141 App. Div. 400. Safe Place If servant knows or discovers after employment, of failure to make and enforce rules necessary to his safety, he assumes risk thereof. Reinertsen v. Erie R. R., 142 App. Div. 31. Failure to make rules not negligence unless in exercise of care they are found necessary. Palmieri v. S. Pearson & Son, Inc., 128 App. Div. 281. Rule admissible to show negligence and disregard of duty by motorman in permitting others to manage car. ° Sullivan v. Richmond Light & R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 175. No negligence predicated on failure to promulgate a rule which is merely a direction not to kill fellow servant. VanAlstine v. Standard L. H. & Power Co., 128 App. Div. 58. For jury to determine whether it was negligent in not promul- gating rules; although no evidence of similar rule in similar use, jury can find necessity for such rule. VanAlstine v. Standard L. H. & Power Co., 128 App. Div. 58. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 497 Safe Place—Continued Where rule forbade putting hand in machine, plaintiff cannot re- cover on violating rule. Meigel v. Crandall Oil & Putty Mfg. Co., 141 App. Div. 828. Necessity and propriety of rules may be determined by a jury, when not used in other places, only where rules are obviously prac- tical to persons of ordinary understanding. Bell v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 128 App. Div. 730. Not negligence to fail to establish rules where none are in use on other roads. Bell v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. R., 128 App. Div. 730. Failure to make rules. Davenport v. Oceanic Amusement Co., 182 App. Div. 368. Failure of railroad engineer to obey rules. Biehl v. Erie R. R., 182 App. Div. 364. Rules governing foreman. Inglese v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 183 App. Div. 198. Failure to provide rule or system. Nichols v. Searle Mfg. Co., 134 App. Div. 62. Rules necessary. Knickerbocker v. Gen. R. R. Signal Co., 183 App. Div. 787. Failure to make rules. Knickerbocker »v. General R. R. Signal Co., 133 App. Div. 787. Rules as to operating machinery. Kirkover v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 184 App. Div. 792. Rules regarding inspection. Griffin v. N. Y. Telephone Co., 141 App. Div. 1. Duty to furnish safe place, to what it extends. Connell v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 144 App. Div. 664. Master may presume that competent servants will not render the placé unsafe where they are employed. Earle v. Clyde Steamship Co., 103 App. Div. 21. 498 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Safe Place—Continued What the duty to furnish safe place includes and implies. Anderson v. McMullen, 145 App. Div. 547. Employee assumes risk, long known, of slippery floor near ma- chinery. Welch v. Waterbury Co., 144 App. Div. 213. Duty not to continue employee in insecure place. Franck v. American Tarter Co., 91 App. Div. 571. When place is dangerous, degree of care required by one working there. Hennessey v. 42nd St. R. R., 44 Mise. 198. Duty to furnish competent servants and safe place to work. Earle v. Clyde Steamship Co., 103 App. Div. 21. Duty of master to furnish safe scaffold cannot be delegated. Siversen v. Jenks, 102 App. Div. 313. Duty to use care in furnishing safe place cannot be delegated. Johnson v. Terry & Tench Co., 113 App. Div. 762. Contract of master to make a safe place. Citrone v. O’Rourke Engineering & Construction Co., 113 App. Div. 518. Gallery which is constructive part of boiler is not place to work but the work itself. McDonough ». Clonbrock Steam Boiler Co., 113 App. Div. 432. When rule applied as to switchman on cars. Kinney v. Rutland R. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 286. Employee using incompleted stairway instead of erecting scaffold assumes a risk. Ryan ». Irons, 114 App. Div. 165. Master only liable for furnishing a reasonable safe place. Rende v. N. Y. & Texas Steamship Co., 187 N. Y. 382. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 499 Safe Place—Continued Rule of safe place does not apply where place is made in the prose- cution of the work itself, and creates the danger. Mullin v. Genesee County Electric L. P. & G. Co., 202 N. Y. 275. Master’s assurance of safety. Graham v. Van Hauten, 53 Misc. 643. If foreman believed the place safe and acted on such belief with ordinary care and prudence, causing the removal of columns, defendant not liable under liability act. Bertolami v. United Engineering & Cont. Co., 120 App. Div. 192. Safe place to work doesnot apply where employee creates the place. Bertolami v. United Engineering & Cont. Co., 120 App. Div. 192. Safe place to work has no application where danger is due to manner in which work is prosecuted. Citrone v. O’Rourke Engineering & Const. Co., 188 N. Y. 339. Not in question, where the plaintiff and co-servants are changing the place as the work progresses. ° McGowan v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 148 App. Div. 1. Master assumes duty to furnish safe place; when for jury to say whether defendant negligent. Lynch v. American Linseed Co., 122 App. Div. 428. Liability of master must be based on negligence and the conduct of the work. Kelly v. Battle Island Paper Co., 122 App. Div. 185. The rule of safe place to work where the prosecution of the work makes the place and creates its danger, does not apply. Ward v. Edison Elec. Iuminating Co., 124 App. Div. 22. No application where danger created by plaintiff and fellow servants during work. Logerto v. Central Building Co.,123 App. Div. 840. Master must maintain as well as furnish such place. Bower v. Holbrook Cabot & Rollins Corporation, 125 App. Div. 684. 500 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Safe Place—Continued Failure to furnish safe place to work and appliances, employ- ment of incompetent foreman, fellow servants, and failure to promul- gate and enforce rules. Bertolami v. United Engineering & Contracting Co., 125 App. Div. 584. Master not relieved from making safe place although the place inherently dangerous. Foster v. Crooker Co., 142 App. Div. 268. Duty to make safe place to work, cannot be delegated to any servant of any grade so as to exonerate the master. Shaw v. D., L. & W. R. R., 126 App. Div. 210. -Truckman not negligent in working in place he supposed safe. ' Obenland v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 127 App. Div. 418. Duty to furnish cannot be delegated to superintendent or foreman. Weinert v. Merchants & Shippers Warehouse Co., 127 App. Div. 826. Where plaintiff selects a plank out of quantity, master not liable. Wynne v. Continental Asphalt & Paving Co., 61 Misc. 94. Not involved where workman is constructing the place itself; fall from plank. McNeil v. Bottsford Dickinson Co., 128 App. Div. 544. Not involved where employee was making the very place in which he worked. Toppi v. McDonald, 128 App. Div. 443. Where tree fell after*blasting, master not liable in failing to furnish safe place to work. Feola v. Orange Co. Road Construction Co., 129 App. Div. 435. Not in question when fall was not from a defective scaffold. Ripp v. Fuchs, 129 App. Div. 321. Only where master furnishes place, not where prosecution of work makes the place. Henry v. Hudson & Manhattan R. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 140. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 501 Safe Place—Continued Meaning of safe place to work. Tweed v. Hudson River Telephone Co.. 180 App. Div. 231. Falling brick. Mulleney v. McDonald, 130 App. Div. 570. Neglect to furnish safe place. Glennon v. Star Co., 180 App. Div. 491. Safe place to work extends to the premises: Glennon v. Star Co., 180 App. Div. 491. Safe place to work. Farley v. White Engineering Co., 131 App. Div. 228. Duties incidental to safe place to work. Farley v. White Engineering Co., 131 App. Div. 228. Question for jury whether master liable in not furnishing protec- tion for person at work against falls. Fagan v. Wells Brothers Co., 63 Misc. 337. ‘Safe place to work not furnished where fellow servants must exercise care to avoid accident. Fagan v. Wells Brothers Co., 63 Misc. 337. Safe place to work, assumption of risk. Bria v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 133 App. Div. 346. Safe place to work. Powers v. Ist, National Bank of America, 133 App. Div. 257. - Safe place to work. Scott v. Nauss Bros Co., 141 App. Div. 255. Safe place to work. Owen v. City of N. Y., 141 App. Div. 217. Safe place to work. Simpson v. Interborough R. T. Co., 141 App. Div. 148. 502 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Safe Place—Continued Safe place to work. Kirby v. Montgomery Brothers Co., 197 N. Y. 27. Safe place to work not applicable to improvised platform. Marsen v. Nichols Copper Co., 1384 App. Div. 294. Safe place to work regardless of co-employee. Flanagan v. Carlin Construction Co., 134 App. Div. 286. Safe place to work and employer’s duty as to. Nyboe v. Stern, 65 Misc. 34. Duty of master and conditions governing. Kiernan v. Gutta Percha & Rubber Mfg. Co., 134 App. Div. 192. Safe place to work. Nyboe »v. Stern, 65 Mise. 34. Safe place to work. LaDuke v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 136 App. Div. 136. Safe place for spectators. Roper v. Ulster Co. Agricultural Society, 136 App. Div. 97. Safe place to work. Blumquist v. Share & Triest Co., 1385 App. Div. 709. Fall of support not intended to be used as such, the plaintiff can- not recover against the master if no proof of want of care. Covit v. Tucker Electric Const. Co., 65 Misc. 567. Safe place to work under employers’ liability act. McDonnell v. Robinson Co., 136 App. Div. 598. Question for jury. Berandino v. N. Y. C. R. R., 186 App. Div. 577. When the rule does not apply. Scott v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 136 App. Div. 347. Reasonable prudent care to be used. Nash v. Crane Co., 141 App. Div. 665. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 503 Safe Place—Continued Safe place to work. McHugh »v. Grand Central Building & Construction Co., 133 App. Div. 109. Master may be negligent in not furnishing safe place to work, although the building is under construction and occupation haz- ardous. Also negligent for failing to instruct inexperienced serv- ants. Chinn v. Ferro Construction Co., 148 App. Div. 368. It is not in question where plaintiff in constructing tunnel was constantly changing place. Scott v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 697. Safe place to work question for jury.. Pepe v. Utica Pipe Foundry Co., 132 App. Div. 458. Duty as to safe place to work does not require observance of the details to see that the progress of the work was continued in safety. Edgar v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 146 App. Div. 541. Sales Vendor not a manufacturer, and not obliged to test article be- fore selling.. Bruckel v. Milhau’s Son, 116 App. Div. 832. Scaffolds Liability of owner is not discharged by furnishing proper ma- terials for construction. Halloway v. McWilliams, 97 App. Div. 360. What is scaffold in law. Welk v. Jackson Agricultural Iron Works, 98 App. Div. 247. Master not liable for fall of temporary scaffold. Sutherland v. Ammann, 112 App. Div. 332. When scaffold used daily is not within meaning of labor law. Stokes v. N. Y. Life Insurance Co., 112 App. Div. 77. 504 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Scaffolds—Continued Employee using incompleted stairway instead of erecting scaf- fold assumes risk. Ryan »v. Irons, 114 App. Div. 165. Under labor law master liable for use of scaffold, although neg- ligently erected by fellow servants. Haggblad v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 117 App. Div. 838, When not within Section 18 of Labor Law. Williams v. First National Bank of Utica, 118 App. Div. 555. When expert testimony proper as to material, construction, and maintenance of scaffold. Burns v. Crow, 123 App. Div. 251. Master liable for injuries although no notice given under lia- bility act. Anderson v. Milliken Bros., 123 App. Div. 614. For jury to say whether scaffold safe and suitable in giving proper protection. Anderson v. Milliken Brothers, 123 App. Div. 614. Jury justified in finding as to construction of scaffold. Bower v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corporation, 125 App. Div. 684. When staging is a scaffold under Labor Law. Bower v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corporation, 125 App. Div. 684. Where plank broke because of defect not discovered on inspection, defendant not liable. Pettersen v. Rahtjen’s Afferican Composition Co., 127 App. Div. 32. Duty to make it safe absolute, and cannot be delegated. Warren v. Post & McCord, 128 App. Div. 572. Plank bridging opening in floor is scaffold. Warren v. Post & McCord, 128 App. Div. 572. Duty to furnish proper and safe materials in scaffold. Chiavaroli v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 131 App. Div. 372. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 505 Scaffolds—Continued Scaffold, meaning of term. Nixon v. Thompson-Starrett Co., 131 App. Div. 152. Scaffold, meaning of the term. Caddy v. Interborough R. T. Co., 195 N. Y. 415. Under labor law, breaking of scaffold by act of fellow servant master not liable. Lorenzo v. Faillace, 182 App. Div. 103. Fall of scaffold, when labor law applies. Gruner v. The Texas Company, 133 App. Div. 413. Part of scaffqld already in use is a scaffold in law. Jones v. Gamble, 140 App. Div. 733. When master furnishing defective scaffold cannot escape lia- bility because defect is not discoverable by inspection. Smith v. Variety Iron & Steel Works Co., 147 App. Div. 242. Schools Boards of Education liable for defects in building after knowl- edge of. Wahrman v. Board of Education, 187 N. Y. 331. Search 3 When is County Clerk liable in failing to find judgment in mak- ing search. Maucher v. Hartzheim, 121 App. Div. 588. Selection of method Selection of method. When it has been proven successful, em- ployee cannot recover because negligent to employ such method. Andriuszis v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 143 App. Div. 607. 506 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Servant Engineer of elevator constructing company not fellow servant with employee. Henry v. Stanley Hod Elevator Co., 129 App. Div. 613. When substitute employed, master not liable. Raible v. Hygienic Ice & Refrigerator Co., 184 App. Div. 705. Failure to furnish competent fellow servants. Isola v. D. L. & W. R. R., 134 App. Div, 313. Incompetent servants and employees. Pratt v. McKee, 135 App. Div. 752. Unfitness of servant may be shown by physical condition. Rhatigan v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 136 App. Div. 727. Settlement With one of two joint tort feasors. Walsh v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 204 N. Y. 58. When evidence of such settlement with one party is not suffi- cient to show release of the other. Walsh v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 204 N. Y. 58. Sewer Liability for sewer flooding plaintiff’s premises. Watson v. City of N. Y., 51 Misc. 653. When city liable for damages caused by sewer. Gravey v. City of N. Y., 117 App. Div. 773. When plaintiff’s proof of title not clear, appellate court may consider deed produced on argument showing title. Karfiol v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 70. A verdict for damages cannot be founded on evidence of flooding of premises drained by a different sewer system. McKenzie v. City of N. Y., 119 App. Div. 60. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 507 Side walk When question of fact as to accident is for jury. Dickerman v. Weeks, 108 App. Div. 257. What negligence of city as to walk requires submission of case to jury. Klaus v. City of Buffalo, 86 App. Div. 221. Under what climatic conditions city not liable. Moran »v. City of N. Y., 98 App. Div. 301. When pedestrian not chargeable with contributory negligence although defect was apparent had she looked. Bartley v. City of New York, 102 App. Div. 23. Duty of abutting owners to keep side walk of street in repair. Krebs v. Heitmann, 104 App. Div. 173. Presumption after 20 years that coal hole in walk was authorized. Hart v. McKenna, 106 App. Div. 219. Liability of abutting owner for injuries, condition of walk caused by independent contractor. Mullins v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 183 N. Y. 129. When defect too slight to suggest danger. Carr v. Degnon Contracting Co., 48 Misc. 531. One temporarily controlling side walk for building purposes must maintain it reasoriably safe; duty cannot be delegated to con- tractor. Lubelsky v. Silverman, 49 Misc. 133. When city not liable for injury to pedestrian stepping into hole caused by removal of flag stone. McCoy v. City of Utica, 143 App. Div. 634. When pedestrian stepping in day time on obstruction, is not guilty of contributory negligence. Stratton v. City of New York, 117 App. Div. 887. Where sloping way has been maintained for years, question of city’s negligence is for jury. Stratton v. City of New York, 117 App. Div. 887. 508 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES— LAW Side walk—Continued Where obstructions consist of ice, when city not liable, for failure to completely clear street. Brennan. v. City of New York, 117 App. Div. 849. When defects and condition makes question of negligence for jury. ; Maroney v. City of N. Y., 117 App. Div. 843. Proof that others escaped injury from defective walk is no de- fense for defect continuing. Maroney v. City of N. Y., 117 App. Div. 848. Proof of previous accidents proper to show notice to city. Maroney »v. City of N. Y., 117 App. Div. 848. Depressions and holes in walk being shown, in one of which plaintiff caught foot, a non-suit is error. Mayhood ». City of N. Y,, 119 App. Div. 100. City negligent for allowing walk to be incumbered for a long period by flag stone forming step. Graham v. City of New Rochelle, 120 App. Div. 414. City entitled to reasonable time to remove ice and snow from the same. Schneider v. City of N. Y., 143 App. Div. 216. Owner not liable to pedestrian leaving side walk in the dark to shorten distance and falling into cellarway. Collins v. Decker, 120 App. Div. 645. It is for jury to say whether maintenance of manhole above level of walk was negligence on part of city. Carr v. City of N. Y., 121 App. Div. 578. Obstruction of side walk by skid used to unload goods. Kurlanchick v. Sklamberg, 56 Misc. 473. Where sufficient notice to city to sustain claim for negligence. Powers v. Village of Moravia, 123 App. Div. 191. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 509 Side walk—Continued City may wait a reasonable time before clearing of ice on as- sumption that owners may clean walk. Cupp v. City of Elmira, 126 App. Div. 539. City not bound to build side walk immediately on opening street. Stadelmann v. City of N. Y., 126 App. Div. 352. Notice of claim for injuries, when sufficient. Purdy v. City of N. Y., 126 App. Div. 320. City not liable where pedestrian falls on ice made rough from imprint of feet in frozen slush. Hatch v. City of Elmira, 142 App. Div. 174. Where plaintiff testifies as to.size of hole in walk, it is question for jury whether size was sufficient to charge city with negligence in allowing it to continue. Murphy ». City of N. Y., 142 App. Div. 62. Village not bound to keep walks in absolutely safe condition. Romanowski v. City of Tonawanda, 127 App. Div. 814. For constructive notice to a city, defect must have been known and notorious, and city had full opportunity through its agents to know and repair. , Ferguson v. Village of Waverly, 128 App. Div. 697. When not sufficient evidence as to negligence from ice and snow. Winckler v. City of N. Y., 129 App. Div. 45. Defect must be located and described. Carson v. Village of Dresden, 129 App. Div. 728. Plaintiff must show the character, nature, location and defect causing injury. Carson v. Village of Dresden, 129 App. Div. 728. Defective side walk in city street. Kelly v. City of N. Y., 129 App. Div. 658. Injured by stepping in hole in walk; question for jury. Dempsey v. City of N. Y., 141 App. Div. 567. 510 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Side walk—Continued Pedestrian injured by stepping in coal hole. McGinnis v. Hyman, 63 Misc. 316. Pedestrian injured by obstructions left by abutting owner on walk. Friedman v. City of N. Y., 63 Misc. 310. Side walk presumed to be constructed on plan. Owen v. City of N. Y., 141 App. Div. 217. Kinds of defects in walk which will amount to negligence, con- struction and acts. Preiss v. City of N. Y., 69 Misc. 492. The duty to clean walks does not apply to a crossing the same as to the side walk. Dupont v. Village of Port Chester, 204 N. Y. 351. Signs Effect of disregarding sign of “‘No admittance.” Withers v. Brooklyn Real Estate Exchange, 106 App. Div. 255. No presumption that one corporation will use same insignia as. another. Casey v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 86. Signals The intestate having seen car, question of signals of its approach are immaterial. : Thompson v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 89 App. Div. 10. Negative evidence, that witness did not hear bell rung or whistle blown sufficient to submit case to jury. Schuster v. Erie R. R., 145 App. Div. 71. Testimony of witness that he did not hear engine bell or whistle. Glennon v. Erie R. T., 86 App. Div. 397. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW oll Signals—Continued Evidence that an engine bell was rung. Browne v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 87 App. Div. 206. The question whether failure to obey signals was negligence and due to inexperience is for the jury. Famularo v. Oil Well Supply Co., 56 Mise. 75. Signals repeated by conductor from brakeman within his au- thority and railroad liable for negligence. Brown v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 126 App. Div. 240. Right of street railroad to make such signals and noises as are incidental and necessary to running its cars. Hoag v. South Dover Marble Co., 192 N. Y. 412. Engineer assumes risk from derailment due to improper location of signals. Pearsall v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 128 App. Div. 397. Employee to give signals, but with no power to control car, is a fellow servant of conductor and not alter ego. Cox v. D. & H. Co., 128 App. Div. 363. Defendant not liable where train was not moved until duly signaled by trainman. Batchelor v. Degnon Realty & Terminal Imp. Co., 141 App. Div. 879. Obeying unexpected signals without investigation. Boyle v. McNulty Bros., 129 App. Div. 412. When acts intervene between the signals and the accident. Boyle v. McNulty Brothers, 129 App. Div. 412. Failure to give signals. Matrusciello v. Milliken Brothers, 141 App. Div. 769. Jury to say as to warning at railroad crossing, ringing of bell, blowing of whistle, ete. Brown v. Long Island R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 649. 512 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Signals—Continued Signals and orders of foreman, whether negligent, question for jury. Galino v. Fleischman Realty Co., 180 App. Div. 605. When superintendent negligent in signals, when employee in place of danger. ; LoMonaco v. Murphy Const. Co., 182 App. Div. 674. Failure to employ person to give signals; action at common law and not under act. Simpson v. Foundation Co., 182 App. Div. 375. Negligence by confusion in signals. Gorman v. N. Y., Chicago & St. Lawrence R. R., 194 N. Y. 488. Negligence and failure to heed signals. Balch v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 184 App. Div. 1. Right to assume pedestrian hears signals. Phelps ». Erie R. R., 184 App. Div. 729. Failure to give signals. Potter v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 184 App. Div. 827. Signals. Hintze v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 140 App. Div. 852. When signals not act of superintendent. McDonnell v. Robinson Co., 136 App. Div. 598. Simple Instruments Master not liable for*injury to employee resulting from ‘simple instrument. Kelley v. National Starch Co., 142 App. Div. 286. Spectator Spectator viewing race and receiving injury cannot recover be- cause contest and use of highway illegal. Johnson v. City of N. Y., 186 N. Y. 139. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 513 Spectator—Continued Spectator at fair. . Roper v. Ulster Co. Agricultural Society, 136 App. Div. 97. Speculation Whether dynamite on train would have exploded and injured plaintiff, pure speculation. Kelly v. D. L. & W. R. R., 192 N. Y. 203. Speculation of jury. Decora v. American Carbide Co., 136 App. Div. 52. Speed Proof of distance that car ran before stopping. McDermott v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 89 App. Div. 214. Result of accident may be shown as bearing on question of speed. Moore v. Westchester Electric C. R. R., 115 App. Div. 62. Explanation of damage may be given as bearing on question of speed. Moore v. Westchester Elec. R. R., 115 App. Div. 62. Whether motorman could have reduced speed within a distance to avoid collision is question for the jury. Duffy v. Interurban St. R. R., 52 Misc. 177. Where speed of car justifies finding of negligence. Clancy v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 569. Expert testimony raising question of fact as to ability to stop train. Thayer v. N. Y.C. & H. R. R. R., 117 App. Div. 318. Charge as to speed at crossing. Serano v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 188 N. Y. 156. Street car approaching curve at great speed and derailed, is evidence of negligence of company. Ludinsky v. N. Y. City R. R., 53 Mise. 572. 514 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Speed—Continued Plaintiff not negligent by miscalculating as to defendant’s speed. Boyce v. N. Y. City R. R., 126 App. Div. 248. As to high speed of railroad at crossing an agreement under railroad law as to obligations is proper although not signed by conductor. Cox v. D. & H. Co., 128 App. Div. 363. No rule of presumption as to rate of speed of approaching car. Netterfield v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 56. Conflicting speed, for the jury. Brewster v. Barker, 129 App. Div. 724. Facts must be given in conclusions. Dwyer v. Auburn & Syracuse Electric R. R., 131 App. Div. 477. Speed of train not shown by hearing. Parsons v. Syracuse, Binghamton & N. Y. R. R., 183 App. Div. 461. Rate of speed to be given. Flynn v. Joline, 135 App. Div. 291. Speed governed by demands of the public for transportation. Wecker v. Brooklyn, Queens Co. & L. I. R. R., 186 App. Div. 340. Stairway When owner of building chargeable with constructive notice of dangerous condition of stairs. Bayley v. Curtiss Brothers Lumber Co., 124 App. Div. 496. e Duty of owner as to condition of stairway in use by the public. Roth v. Feld Co., 59 Misc. 214. Stairway landing, when not included in lease, landlord bound to keep in repair. Peters v. Kelly, 129 App. Div. 290. Failure to light stairway. Weller v. Consolidated Gas Co., 198 N. Y. 98. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 515 State State not liable under respondeat superior for acts of its em- ployees in a State Hospital. Martin v. State of New York, 120 App. Div. 633. The state is liable for maintaining on its own lands, structures or excavations from which injuries result. Carroll v. State of New York, 73 Misc. 516. Statutes When a contractor assumes duty of complying with statute. Quigley v. Thatcher, 144 App. Div. 710. Foreign statute re-enacted by N. Y. State construed as inter- preted in foreign country. Bellegarde v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 90 App. Div. 577. Federal statutes may be considered by jury; need not be offered in evidence. Carlin v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 71 Misc. 521. Violation of statute is evidence of negligence but not in every case so conclusive as to exclude proof absolving defendan . Lee v. Sterling Silk Mfg. Co., 115 App. Div. 589. Labor law statute need not be pleaded to make it available. Haggblad v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 117 App. Div. 838. Violation of duty imposed by statute is evidence of negligence justifying verdict. Shields v. Pugh & Co., 122 App. Div. 586. Plaintiff need not allege action brought under statute. Schradin v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 124 App. Div. 705. Where statute compels stopping of car before crossing track, employee has a right to assume that rule would be obeyed. Malizia v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 202. Statute may extend common law duty to classes of persons and 516 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Statutes—Continued originate protection for those for whom it did not exist under common law. Racine v. Morris, 201 N. Y. 240. Statute may create a duty unknown to common law, a violation of which gives cause for damages. Racine v. Morris, 201 N. Y. 240. If plaintiff relies on common law, Federal or State statutes he must so state. Payne v. N. Y. Susquehanna & Western R. R., 141 App. Div. 833. Statutory meaning of words and phrases. Caddy v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 195 N. Y. 415. The mere violation of statute is not, per se, proof of negligence so as to subject the violator to an action in favor of private in- dividual. Hyde v. McCreery, 145 App. Div. 729. Steam Boiler Defection in construction, manufacturer liable. Statler v. Ray Manufacturing Co., 125 App. Div. 69. Streets What is a street intersection. Freeman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 87 App. Div. 127. Rights and liabilities gs to obstructions in streets. Kurlanchick v. Sklamberg, 56 Misc. 473. Where negligence of locating trolley pole and collision with vehicle is question for jury. Lambert v. Westchester Electric R. R. Co.,.191 N. Y. 248. Omission to look on crossing street only excused where it would be unavailing. Gallagher v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 124 App. Div. 868. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 517 Streets—Continued Dangerous obstruction; jury to say whether a city is charged with notice of stone in highway; error to dismiss complaint. Orser v. City of N. Y., 127 App. Div. 335. Judicial notice taken as to travel and police service on_ streets. Orser v. City of N. Y., 127 App. Div. 335. Rule as to one attempting to pass another in highway going in same direction applies to vehicles headed in same direction. Altenkirch v. National Biscuit Co., 127 App. Div. 307. City not liable where danger is not to be reasonably apprehended. Kelly v. City of N. Y., 129 App. Div. 658. Must show existence of obstruction long enough to give noti¢e. Higgins v. City of Albany, 130 App. Div. 276. Duty of railroad to keep tracks in permanent condition of re- pair and not await order from city authorities for so doing. Schuster v. F.S. 8. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R. Co., 192 N. Y. 403. In narrow street motorman to use care in sounding gong and starting car while passing vehicles. Sauter v. International R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 400. Municipality not liable for surface water from unimproved street where such was natural course before street laid out. Jung v. City of N. Y., 132 App. Div. 18. Obstruction of street by occupant of abutting property. Fluker v. Zeigele Brewing Co., 201 N. Y. 40. When defect does not indicate an obvious danger. Davidson v. City of N. Y., 133 App. Div. 353. Paramount right of city to repair streets, in its own way. Swift v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 134 App. Div. 134. Defective streets and places near. Buckley v. City of N. Y., 135 App. Div. 512. If obstructions dangerous to pedestrians, city may be liable for 518 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Streets—Continued failure to remove. Not negligence where obstructions are in common use through the city. Harman v. City of N. Y., 148 App. Div. 61. While a railroad may operate trains on a street its use must be reasonable, as other persons may travel on the street. Sheldon v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 396. Street Railroad A person on alighting and crossing opposite track has to assume that approaching car will be under control. Beers v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 104 App. Div. 96. Ruie as to equality of rights between vehicles and cars at street intersection. Schmedding v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 85 App. Div. 24. Not necessary that pedestrian come from across street to give equal rights with street car at intersection. Freeman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 87 App. Div. 127. Rights of pedestrian and street car are equal at crossing. Mauer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 87 App. Div. 119. What proof justifies an inference that motorman saw plaintiff and slowed up car for plaintiff to board. Mulligan v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 89 App. Div. 207. Not bound to use the highest degree of care. Kelly v. Metropolitan Sts R. R., 89 App. Div. 159. Obligation of company to have fenders on cars. Fritsch v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 93 App. Div. 554. Comparative rights as between car and vehicle on highway. Belford v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 43 Misc. 148. Assumption of risk by conductor from employment of intemper- ate motorman. White v. Lewiston & Youngstown F. R. Co., 94 App. Div. 4. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 519 Street Railroad—Continued What streets are intersecting streets as to vehicles and cars. Solomon v. Buffalo R. R. Co., 96 App. Div. 487. Obligation to establish rules and violation of the same. Ward v. Manhattan R. R., 95 App. Div. 437. Duty of pedestrians to look; when failure to look not contribu- tory negligence. Monck »v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 97 App. Div. 447. When starting train is an act of superintendence not a mere detail. McHugh v. Manhattan R. R., 179 N. Y. 378. When rate of speed not per se unlawful for car, but it may be negligent in fact. Reid Ice Cream Co. v. N. Y. City R. R., 97 App. Div. 303. Paramount right of car and vehicle on city street considered. Barringer v. United Traction Co., 101 App. Div. 330. Care required respectively by pedestrian and motorman in street. Toohey v. Interurban St. R. R., 102 App. Div. 296. Failure of bicycle rider to look a second time for car before cross- ing is contributory negligence. Knapp v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 103 App. Div. 252. Liability arising not caused by sudden stopping of car but by creating an emergency which induced it. Dowling v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 107 App. Div. 312. Paramount right of car where street enters but does not cross street railroad. Rutz v. N. Y. City R. R., 107 App. Div. 568. Sudden starting of car not sufficient to show negligent mis- management. Hirsch v. Union R. R., 48 Mise. 527. 520 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Street Railroad—Continued Right of way of fire insurance patrol under city charter. Duffghe v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 109 App. Div. 603. Passenger assumes ordinary risk by riding on platform. Kiefer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 111 App. Div. 404. Duty of passenger riding on platform as to care. Depew v. N. Y. City R. R., 112 App. Div. 260. Contributory negligence of passenger alighting from car and passing behind it to adjoining track. McGreevy v. N.Y. City R. R., 113 App. Div. 155. Bicycle rider may assume car will approach crossing under control. * Brooks v. International R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 555. Duty of all railroads in regard to taking on passengers. Walsh v. Interurban St. R. R., 50 Misc. 637. When motorman bound to use ordinary care. Solomon v. N. Y..City R. R., 50 Misc. 557. Injury to persons crossing tracks. Hoag v. South Dover Marble Co., 50 Misc. 499. Degree of care required of conductor of street car at grade cross- ing of steam road. Walsh v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 797. Pedestrian cannot assume that motorman would see her. Healy v. United Traction,Co., 115 App. Div. 868. If driver of vehicle sees car, whether car bell rings is imma- terial. Kerin v. United Traction Co., 117 App. Div. 314. Erroneous charge as to care while driving on track. Romeo v. Union R. R. Co., 52 Mise. 578. Failure to use care in crossing track. Stassen v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 52 Misc. 577. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 521 Street Railroad—Continued When attempt to cross track is not negligence as a matter of law. Heitz v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 117 App. Div. 746. Car approaching curve at great speed and derailed is evidence of negligence on part of company. Ludinsky v. N. Y. City R. R., 53 Misc. 572. Street railroad liable for injuries sustained by failure to repair pavement between its tracks and outside its tracks, although no previous demand made. Schuster v. 42nd St. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 197. The right of way at points between intersecting streets. Fitzgerald v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 3. (Mem.) Looking and listening on crossing track. Robinson v. Crosstown St. R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 543. Proof of vision being obscured may be considered on question of contributory negligence. Zucker v. Whitridge, 143 App. Div. 191. When failure to look or listen for car is negligence as matter of law. Volosko v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 190 N. Y. 206. It is for jury to say whether starting of car was proximate cause of accident. Randazzo v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 573. Starting car at crossing and running into vehicle without sound- ing gong, negligence. McGurgan v. N. Y. City R. R., 121 App. Div. 519. Injuries resulting to employee from improper construction of cars; negligence of defendant question for jury. Durkee v. Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 122 App. Div. 278. When crossing track and looking, it cannot be said plaintiff guilty of negligence as a matter of law. - Murphy ». Interurban St. R. R., 56 Misc. 598. 522 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Street Railroad—Continued Passenger injured when alighting by failure to stop car. Garner v. 42nd St. R. R. Co., 56 Misc. 500. Verdict reversed where no evidence to show decedent made effort to discover car. Sobol v. Union R. R. Co., 122 App. Div. 817. Railroad negligent where motorman failed to control car at in- tersecting street. Huther v. Nassau Electric R. R., 142 App. Div. 522. Passenger falling when alighting must show affirmatively negli- gence of railroad employees. Masterson v. Crosstown St. R. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 499. Error to charge that motorman must give reasonable opportunity for crossing track in front of car. Geisendorfer v. Union R. R. Co., 124 App. Div. 597. Rear end collision on track used by another company, when res ipsa loquitur does not apply. Elliott v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 127 App. Div. 300. Right to make such noise as necessary and incidental to running of cars. Hoag v. South Dover Marble Co., 192 N. Y. 412. Where motorman negligently starts car without signal from conductor and injures conductor, he is vice principal under rail- road law and railroad hable. Simons v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 142 App. Div. 36. Not error to charge that road has paramount right of way in every portion of street. Newman v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 12. When an original duty to keep tracks in repair and not await order from city to repair. Schuster v. F. 8. S. M. & St. N. Ave. R. R., 192 N. Y. 403. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 523 Street Railroad—Continued In narrow street, motorman to use care as to sounding gong and starting while passing vehicle. Sauter v. International R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 400. Passenger required to look after leaving street railroad. Tully v. N. Y. City R. R., 127 App. Div. 688. May be. found negligent in starting car before passenger has taken seat. McGlynn v. Nassau Electric R. R., 128 App. Div. 866. Liable for injury to passengers while alighting. Blair v. Brooklyn, Queens Co. & Suburban R. R. Co., 141 App. Div. 843. Not negligent to permit crowding; company obliged to protect passengers from injury. Becker v. Interborough R. T. Co., 128 App. Div. 455. Not prudent to cross track when it is apparent that car will overtake pedestrian. Netterfield ». N. Y. City R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 56. Pedestrian must use reasonable care, need not wait until cars pass. VanDenbout v. Rochester R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 844. Pedestrian has right to cross although seeing car. VanDenbout v. Rochester R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 844. Whether motorman on car operating controller must use highest care. Endres v. International R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 785. Injury to child crossing street. Feinstein v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 130 App. Div. 258. Passenger injured by sudden starting of car when attempting to alight. Dwyer v. Auburn & Syracuse Elec. R. R., 131 App. Div. 477. Collision with vehicle, failing to look. Hinode Florist Co. v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 131 App. Div. 118. 524 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Street Railroad—Continued Collision between car and truck injuring passenger, paramount. right in street. Tucker v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 131 App. Div. 97. Accident, question for jury. Gaebler v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 130 App. Div. 881. Paramount right of way of street railroad. Jaffa v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 131 App. Div. 852. Collision with vehicle driven on track. Pietraroia 0. N. J. & H. R. R. & F. Co., 131 App. Div. 829. Crossing street railroad, failure to look. Daly v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 182 App. Div. 359. Pedestrian guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law. Daly v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 182 App. Div. 359. Paramount right of way in driving in street. Normand v. Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 1383 App. Div. 74. Collision, speed and no signals. Normand v. Hudson Valley R. R. Co., 133 App. Div. 474. Injury by sudden stopping and starting when passenger alight- ing. Olson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 183 App. Div. 445. Injury to passenger by alighting. Brown v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 276. Safe place to alight. « Speck v. International R. R. Co., 183 App. Div. 802. Starting of car, question for jury. Hirschberg v. Brooklyn, Queens Co. & Suburban R. R., 134 App. Div. 629. Injury to passenger alighting from car. McGrane v. Nassau Electric R. R., 184 App. Div. 257. Attempt to board car. Flynn ». Joline, 135 App. Div. 291. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 525 Street Railroad—Continued Collision between cars of different companies. Stanbridge v. Nassau Electric Co., 135 App. Div. 38. Rights of way with vehicles. Moore v.. Rochester R. R., 184 App. Div. 853. Duty to protect passengers from injury. Becker v. Interborough R: T. Co., 128 App. Div. 455. A ruling that motorman should state whether he was discharged subsequent to action and cause of discharge, is error. Engel v. United Traction Co., 203 N. Y. 321. No obligation to give warning to adults until collision is immi- nent. In case of children, speed must be reduced and warning given. Nitchman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 146 App. Div. 558. Striking out Evidence When it does not cure error. Chernick v. Independent American Ice Cream Co., 66 Misc. 177. Structure Meaning of the term, structure. Caddy v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 195 N. Y. 415. Sui Juris Law presumes child under 12 years, non sui juris and the bur- den of showing sui juris is for one asserting it. Rooney v. Brogan Construction Co., 113 App. Div. 818. Presumption of non sui juris. Gerber v. Boorstein, 113 App. Div. 808. Direction of verdict for defendant on assumption that plaintiff was sui juris, error. Corsale v. Facini et al., 60 Misc. 100. 526 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Sui Juris—Continued Burden on plaintiff to show non sui juris. Corsale v. Facini et al., 60 Misc. 100. Degree of care depends on age of child. Buscher v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 114 App. Div. 85. Superintendent Superintendent only alter ego of the master. Tamaseric v. Beckwith, 145 App. Div. 78. Duty and liability of superintendents of work. Straus v. Buchman, 96 App. Div. 270. Principal not liable for act of superintendent not in his business nor an act of superintendence. Quinlan v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 107 App. Div. 176. Who is and who is not superintendent within meaning of em- ployers’ act. Quinlan v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 107 App. Div. 176. Question of superintendence and inherent risk of employment for the jury under employers’ act. McBride v. N. Y. Tunnel Co., 118 App. Div. 821. An assistant superintendent is a fellow employee. McDonald v. Simpson-Crawford Co., 114 App. Div. 859. When employee has a right to rely on orders from superintendent. Mikos v. N. Y. C. & H. RB. R. R., 118 App. Div. 536. Liability against master for acts of superintendent exists only where the latter is engaged in an act of superintendence. Lowrey v. Huntington Light & Power Co., 121 App. Div. 245. Master liable for negligence of superintendent in failing to remove frozen crust on coal pit, which superintendent has notice of and promised to attend to. Sienbida v. Tonawanda Board & Paper Co., 121 App. Div. 70. DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 527 Superintendent—Continued Superintendent, within meaning of employers’ liability act. Heffron v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 121 App. Div. 35. Under employers’ liability act. Ozogar v. Pierce, Butler & Pierce Mfg. Co., 55 Misc. 579. When superintendent acts as fellow servant. Hope v. Scranton & Lehigh Coal Co., 120 App. Div. 595. The act must be one of direction, oversight or controlling plain-- tiff or his situation or action. Hope v. Scranton & Lehigh Coal Co., 120 App. Div. 595. Employers’ act creates liability only when superintendent en- gaged in such service. Hope v. Scranton & Lehigh Coal Co., 120 App. Div. 595. A foreman in charge of railroad men in yard ordering employee: between cars is acting as superintendent. Onesti v. Central N. E. R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 554. When act of superintendent in helping employee that of fellow servant. Kujava v. Irving, 122 App. Div. 375. If several clothed with that duty in absence of superintendent,. it must be shown he was absent. Williams v. Citizens Steamboat Co., 122 App. Div. 188. Negligence of employee under liability act, is only chargeable to: master when his sole duty was that of superintendent. Williams v. Citizens Steamboat Co., 122 App. Div. 188. Superintendent under statute means more than mere authority to give instructions to help in respect to a limited detail of the work. Falk v. Havemeyer, 123 App. Div. 657. Superintendent is one whose sole duty is that of superintendent.. Bovi v. Hess, 123 App. Div. 389. 528 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Superintendent—Continued Where act not that of superintendent under employers’ liability act. Quinlan v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 191 N. Y. 329. Superintendent of corporation receiving orders from president and giving them to foreman may be alter ego of corporation. Connolly v. Hall & Grant Const. Co., 192 N. Y. 182. Proper to show a promise to protect against danger. Devine v. Alphons Custodis Chimney Const. Co., 126 App. Div. 7. When foreman does acts of superintendence under employers’ act this knowledge makes defendant liable. Vincenzo v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 126 App. Div. 481. Where superintendent is mistaken in judgment as to method of work, employee assumes risk and master not liable. Martin v. Degnon Contracting Co., 127 App. Div. 85. For jury to say whether the act of boss was one of superinten- dence and negligent under circumstances. Devine v. Hayward, 128 App. Div. 705. When lowering or raising elevator on signal, he acts as super- intendent. Boyle v. McNulty Bros., 129 App. Div. 412. When employee is acting as superintendent, employer liable. Anderson v. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 61 Mise. 504. Act of superintendent. Carlsen v. McKee, 129 App. Div. 652. Detail which master could delegate. Farley v. White Engineering Co., 131 App. Div. 228. Superintendents are not fellow servants only when acting in ,performance of their duties. Cavanagh v. Central New England R. R., 131 App. Div. 856. When employee not vested with the power of superintendent. LoMonaco v. Murphy Construction Co., 132 App. Div. 674. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 529 . Superintendent—Continued | Standing in place of employer. English v. Milliken Brothers, 182 App. Div. 501. Authority of superintendent to give directions, etc., for the jury. Palin v. Cary Brick Co., 133 App. Div. 483. Negligence of superintendent. Larson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 184 App. Div. 679. Acts of superintendent. Hurley v. Olcott, 134 App. Div. 631. Knowledge of master. Kirby v. Montgomery Brothers Co., 197 N. Y. 27. When operator not superintendent within employers’ liability act. Lee v. Western Electric Co., 135 App. Div. 60. Superintendents and acts of superintendence. Pratt v. McKee, 135 App. Div. 752. Acts done by superintendent chargeable to master. Martin v. Cornell, 1386 App. Div. 585. The liability for his negligence does not cover the personal negli- gence of the superintendent or negligence of one temporarily act- ing as quasi superintendent. Wesel v. Powers Co., 147 App. Div. 167. When jury justified in finding the determination of the engineer is an act of superintendence and not a detail of work. Impellizzieri v. Cranford, 148 App. Div. 755. Telegraph Individual or corporation transmitting messages cannot by contract absolve themselves from liability for wilful negligence. Weld »v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 148 App. Div. 588. 530 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Telephone Telephone pole, duty as to inspection, tests, detail of work. LaDuke v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 124 App. Div. 106. Lineman can assume that poles were inspected. LaDuke v. Hudson River Telephone Co., 136 App. Div. 136. Poles set under transportation law must not endanger use of highway. Bailey v. Bell Telephone Co., 147 App. Div. 224. Tenement House What constitutes tenement house and right to use yards. Aldrich v. Laul, 126 App. Div. 427. Tests Where adequate tests are made to prevent explosion, question of negligence as to for the jury. Torgesen v. Schultz, 192 N. Y. 156. Testimony Incredibility of testimony on the part of plaintiff. Bayles v. Plumb, 141 App. Div. 786. Impossibility and incredibility of testimony. Johnson v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 133 App. Div. 252. ° Theater When duty on owner to make fit for public use, ignorance of defect is no excuse. Lusk v. Peck, 132 App. Div. 426. Not liable to person not employed by manager of theater. Mitcheltree v. Stair & Wilbur, 135 App.. Div. 210. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 531 Think Think defined as equivalent to recollect or recall. Boice v. Ulster & Delaware R. R. Co., 120 App. Div. 643. Third Persons Injuries to third person by servant of contractor. Covit v. Tucker Electric Const. Co., 65 Misc. 567. Tools and Appliances When switchman assumes risk of faulty design of switch and its being out of order. Loushay v. Erie R. R. Co., 95 App. Div. 102. Refusal to allow proof that a safety appliance was worn and defective. ; Starer v. Stern, 100 App. Div. 393. How far selection of tools is a detail of work. Ebbitt v. Milliken, 103 App. Div. 211. Sufficiency of tools is to be determined by the jury and not by experts. Dolan v. Herring Hall & Marvin Safe Co., 105 App. Div. 366. Master bound to furnish safe appliance. A foreman directing use of defective appliance does not relieve liability. Pluckham v. American Bridge Co., 104 App. Div. 404. Right of servant to assume it is safe for him to use appliance. Motzing v. Excelsior Brewing Co., 107 App. Div. 275. Furnishing coarse instead of fine steel tool justifies finding of failure to furnish safe tools. Crilley v. New Amsterdam Gas Co., 106 App. Div. 127. Liable for furnishing defective appliances to be used by an- other contractor. McMullen v. City of N. Y., 110 App. Div. 117. 532 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Tools and Appliances—Continued Duty to use reasonably safe appliances; right to rely on others in selection of same. Healy v. Buffalo Rochester & Pittsburg R. R., 111 App. Div. 618. Duty of defendant to furnish safe and proper tools. Smith v. Manhattan R. R., 112 App. Div. 202. Assumption of risk by workman using common tools. Cunningham »v. Pierce, 112 App. Div. 65. Master only bound to furnish tools in general use. Paul v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 113 App. Div. 515. Master not generally liable for injuries resulting from use of simple appliance. Hart v. Village of Clinton, 115 App. Div. 761. Master not bound to use best known appliances but only those reasonably fit and proper. Burns v. Old Sterling Iron & Mining Co., 188 N. Y. 175. When a tool is not defective because much used. Kellogg v. N. Y. Edison Co., 120 App. Div. 410. When a blow off cock is not a defective appliance. Kelly v. American Locomotive Co., 121 App. Div. 81. No recovery where there is no evidence of incompetency of fellow servant or of negligence in tempering, or that appliance was not of proper quality. Hohl v. Hewitt Motor Co., 121 App. Div. 866. A wooden box on which plaintiff stood is a mechanical con- trivance under labor law. Michael v. Standard Concrete Steel Co., 55 Misc. 255.. Duty of master to furnish tools and appliances cannot be dele- gated. Huber v. Whale Creek Iron Works. 125 App. Div. 184. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 533 Tools and Appliances—Continued The fact of others using defective appliances no excuse for negli- gence. Evans v. Pearson & Son (inc.), 125 App. Div. 666. Mere allegation of neglect to provide safe tools, appliances, etc., is a conclusion of fact, and bill of particulars will be required. Horeau v. Schwartzkopf, 142 App. Div. 69. Master bound to furnish only reasonably safe and suitable, not the best possible or one in perfect condition. Burke v. International Paper Co., 128 App. Div. 680. Duty to furnish suitable tools and appliances and keep them in repair to prevent unnecessary peril. Wilson v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 129 App. Div. 125. To be sufficient and reasonably safe. Farley v. White Engineering Co., 131 App. Div. 228. Tool in use for purpose not intended, liability for injury on master. Aitken v. Cornell Co., 130 App. Div. 824. Tools and appliances in customary use with safety can be re- tained. Paul v. Consolidated Fire Works Co., 133 App. Div. 310. Employee’s duty in use of simple instruments, master not liable. MeMillan v. Minetto Shade Cloth Co., 134 App. Div. 28. Selecting instruments a detail of work. MeMillan v. Minetto Shade Cloth Co., 134 App. Div. 28. Use of simple instruments. MeMillan v. Minetto Shade Cloth Co., 134 App. Div. 28. Master providing safe tools not liable for acts of fellow servant in not selecting safe appliances. Mulligan v. McDonald, 135 App. Div. 536. To render master liable for failure to supply employees, with 534 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Tools and Appliances—Continued sparking appliances in use in other establishments, the use of those appliances must be at the instance of the employees and not an individual workman. Bilicki v. Staten Island Ship Building Co., 147 App. Div. 687. It is presumed that the master has performed the duty of fur- nishing the plaintiff with reasonably safe tools and appliances. Davis v. Gas Engine & Power Co., 148 App. Div. 791. An error in a foreman’s judgment in not using safe appliances does not make master liable. Scott v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 697. Town Notice of cause of action may be served on supervisor of town. Eggleston v. Town of Chautauqua, 90 App. Div. 314. Error to prove assessed valuation on question of ability to pay damages. Madigan v. Town of Schaghticoke, 143 App. Div. 887. Not necessary to allege that commissioner had funds, negligence implies that he was in a position to act. Hayner v. Town of Schaghticoke, 126 App. Div. 498. Town only liable in case where former highway commissioner was liable. Clarke v. Town of Copake, 142 App. Div. 202. When notice of claim for injuries sufficient. Clarke v. Town of Copgke, 142 App. Div. 202. Not liable for injuries caused by defective highway in absence of statutory provisions; under statute only liable for negligence of highway commissioner. Booth v. Town of Orleans, 147 App. Div. 240. Trespassers : The rule of care due to trespassers stated. Rosenthal v. N. Y. 8. & W. R. R., 112 App. Div. 431. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 535 Trespassers—Continued Land owner not liable for injury to trespasser. Kane v. Erie R. R., 110 App. Div. 7. Owner of land adjoining highway not liable for injuries to pe- destrian deviating short distance from highway and becoming trespasser. Collins v. Decker, 120 App. Div. 645. Railroad; when question of defendant’s negligence is for the jury. Neuberger v. Long Island R. R. Co., 131 App. Div. 885. Railroad; only bound not to injure trespasser intentionally, etc. Neuberger v. Long Island R. R. Co., 131 App. Div. 885. No duty owed to volunteers or trespassers. Hickock v. Auburn Light, Heat & Power Co., 200 N. Y. 464. Not bound to make safe for trespassers. Kleinberg v. Schween, 134 App. Div. 493. Trial Effect of noticing cause for trial at special term. Sadlier v. City of New York, 104 App. Div. 82. Trial justice elevated to Appellate Division cannot decide reserved’ motion for non-suit. Milliman v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 109 App. Div. 139. Improper inferences by attorney. Frahm ». Siegel-Cooper Co., 181 App. Div. 747. Decision not set aside. Azzara v. Nassau Electric R. R., 134 App. Div. 167. Changing theory of the action at second trial. Cannon »v. Fargo, 147 App. Div. 51. 536 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Truck Not negligent for unlighted truck to stop in center of highway at night where room to pass. Lorenz v. Tisdale, 127 App. Div. 433. Ultra Vires When a city sued for tort, defense of ultra vires available though not pleaded. Brennan v. City of Albany, 148 App. Div. 752. Value When damage cannot be based on shrinkage of value in a family horse. Mendelson v. Van Rensselaer, 118 App. Div. 516. Vehicle A driver has a right to assume that every other driver would use due care. Steel Drake Baking Co. v. Piercy Contracting Co., 140 App. Div. 113. When driver’s negligence is not imputed to a person riding with him. Robinson v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 91 App. Div. 158. What is proof that vehicle and horse were left unattended and the ownership thereof. Brand v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 95 App. Div. 64. ; : * : : wag A buggy is an implement not a mechanical contrivance within employers’ liability act. Pluckham ». American Bridge Co., 104 App. Div. 404. Evidence that driver looked behind while turning or already on track, sufficient to recover. Bang v. N. Y. Queens Co. R. R., 113 App. Div. 673. City ordinance as to direction of moving vehicles. McCarragher v. Proal, 114 App. Div. 470. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 537 Vehicle—Continued Where person injured is an emergency servant and fellow servant of driver, master not liable. Gunderson v. Eastern Brewing Co., 71 Misc. 519. Boy riding by permission of driver, master not liable for driver’s negligence. Gunderson v. Eastern Brewing Co., 71 Misc. 519. A co-employee of driver of vehicle injured by collision with car may recover against company. Scheib v. New York City R. R., 115 App. Div. 578. It is proper to charge that defendant’s driver was not negligent although on wrong side of street if he there conducted himself with care. Sticht v. Buffalo Cereal Co., 116 App. Div. 632. Not negligent for driver to strike horse to prevent his falling. Kleffman v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 116 App. Div. 334. : Whether driver relied on passenger to look for approaching car is question for jury. Ciarcia v. Westchester Electric R. R., 116 App. Div. 899. Instructions by owner to driver as to care does not excuse owner for negligence of driver. Bamberg v. International R. R. Co., 53 Misc. 403. When driver negligent and inattentive to duty, question of neg- ligence in ra‘lroad collision, for jury. Bamberg v. International R. R. Co., 53 Misc. 403. Where persons riding with driver did nothing to control action of driver, his negligence not to be imputed to plaintiff. ’ Doctoroff v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 55 Misc. 216. A driver is not negligent in failing to look all the time in crossing as he has a right to attend to his horse. McGurgan v. New York City R. R., 121 App. Div. 519. Person seated with truck driver paying no attention to car in 538 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Vehicle—Continued crossing track, never looking or caring to avoid accident, guilty of contributory negligence. Caminez v. Brooklyn, Queens Co. & Suburban R. R., 127 App. Div. 138. Negligence to frighten horse by sounding gong or to increase speed in narrow street. Sauter v. International R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 400. Verdict When trial court and Appellate Division may set aside verdict as contrary to evidence of negligence alleged. Fish v. Utica Steam & Mohawk Valley Cotton Mills, 109 App. Div. 326. Evidence showing verdict inadequate. -Fahlbusch v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 145 App. Div. 544. Verdict against owner set aside where error requires reversal as to contractor. Walsh v. Riesenburg, 94 App. Div. 466. May be set aside although proper to submit case to jury. Walker v. Newton Falls Paper Co., 99 App. Div. 47. When verdict for plaintiff properly set aside though no evidence introduced by defendant. Surkin v. Interborough St. R. R., 45 Misc. 407. When evidence, equally consistent with both plaintiff and defend- ant’s theory, verdict for plaintiff will not be sustained. Owen v. Retsof Mining Co., 102 App. Div. 130. Verdict not sustained where either of two causes may have caused injury, for one of which defendant liable, for other not liable. Nelson v. City of N. Y., 101 App. Div. 18. Request for direction of verdict. Griffin v. Interurban St. R. R., 46 Misc. 328. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 539 Verdict—Continued Action of trial judge setting aside verdict not reversed unless clearly improper. Dowling v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 107 App. Div. 312. On dismissal of complaint after verdict and reversal, a new trial and new re-instatement of verdict is proper. Duhme v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 107 App. Div. 237. Verdict at variance with erroneous charge may be set aside. McManus v. St. Regis Paper Co., 107 App. Div. 29. Failure to move for direction of verdict a second time after re- opening of case. Weizinger v. Erie R. R., 106 App. Div. 411. Verdict may be founded on inference of jury as to cause of ex- plosion. Haslin v. National Foundry Co., 106 App. Div. 152. When against the weight of evidence. Greehy v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 112 App. Div. 211. Where verdict of freedom from contributory negligence is founded on conjecture. Lipsis v. Metropolitan Street R. R., 112 App. Div. 27. Verdict not supported by leading question that driver had driven on track quite a distance. Bang v. N. Y. Queens Co. R. R., 113 App. Div. 673. Plaintiff’s verdict must be supported by preponderance of evi- dence as matter of law. Moses Co. v. Interborough R. T. Co., 113 App. Div. 577. Discretion of trial.court in setting aside verdict because of in- sufficient award. Ryckman v. International R. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 16. (Mem.) Direction of verdict on motion to dismiss complaint. Crecelius v. City of N. Y., 114 App. Div. 801. 540 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Verdict—Continued Verdict contrary to charge reversed, although justified by evi- dence. Paine v. Geneva Waterloo S. F. & C. L. Traction Co., 115 App. Div. 729. Where a cause is submitted to a judge who reserves final deci- sion, his determination is equivalent to a verdict. Miller v. International R. R. Co., 52 Mise. 344. Verdict against weight of evidence where plaintiff alone testified as to the occurrence. Gormley v. 42nd St. M. & 8. N. Ave. R. R., 116 App. Div. 155. When restricted by charge to negligence of particular employee, it must be confined to that. Egg v. Rochester R. R. Co., 115 App. Div. 804. Effect of verdict exonerating a co-defendant. Heffern v. Village of Haverstraw, 143 App. Div. 527. Court has power to request jury to reconsider their determina- tion as to the amount of the verdict. Douglas v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 119 App. Div. 203. In three cases the judge may interfere with a verdict. . First where damages are nominal. Second, inaction on contract where plaintiff entitled to fixed sum. Third, where interest is added or obvious amendment made with their consent to express their real view. Douglas v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 119 App. Div. 203. Error for Court to indicate that verdict is insufficient. Douglas v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 119 App. Div. 208. Verdict contrary to evidence where plaintiff is sole witness and four disinterested witnesses show his contributory negligence. Shatzman v. N. Y. City R. R. Co., 55 Misc. 300. Where plaintiff’s evidence corroborated by witness, and defend- ant offers no evidence, verdict for defendant error. Klein v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 55 Misc. 211. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 541 Verdict—Continued When yerdict of two hundred dollars inadequate for plaintiff on account of age, and injuries received. Tourtelotte v. Westchester Electric R. R. Co., 120 App. Div. 417. Verdict cannot be set aside as to one joint tort feasor and net as to the others. Bamberg v. International R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 1. Excessive verdict should not be based on compensation to sister of decedent. Rice v. Interurban St. R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 714. Motion to direct verdict on specific grounds and waiver of “others. Crissman v. Erie R. R., 123 App. Div. 61. Verdict of $5,000 not excessive. Rosenbeck v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 123 App. Div. 606. Verdict forty thousand dollars not excessive. Cunningham v. Mutual Reserve Life Insurance Co., 125 App. Div. 688. Verdict against joint tort -feasors must be against defendants jointly. Hanley v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 127 App. Div. 355. Whether any evidence to support direction of verdict and as- sessment of damages is a question reviewable by Court of Appeals. Clancy v. N. Y., N. H. & H.R. R., 201 N. Y. 235. Where evidence sufficient to sustain, court will not reverse un- less preponderance of evidence does not leave it free from doubt. Buckley v. Garden City Co., 127 App. Div. 52. Verdict based on wrong theory will be reversed. Genovesia v. Pelham Operating Co., 180 App. Div. 200. Verdict not based on speculation, surmise or conjecture. McDonnell v. Metropolitan Bridge & Construction Co., 131 App. Div. 301. When both parties request direction. of verdict, and defendant 542 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Verdict—Continued fails to ask to go to jury on specific questions, court may assess damages. Clancy v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 133 App. Div. 119. . Compromise or quotient verdicts. McCormick v. Rochester R. R., 183 App. Div. 760. ° Where both parties move for verdict, facts are for court. Burke v. Erie R. R., 184 App. Div. 413. Verdict not to be set aside because of different view of appellate court. Berkowitz v. Consolidated Gas Co., 1384 App. Div. 389. Re-instatement of verdict. Berkowitz v. Consolidated Gas Co., 184 App. Div. 389. Re-instatement of verdict. Kozak v. Erie R. R., 135 App. Div. 726. Verdict against weight of evidence. Faudington v. Erie R. R. Co., 136 App.. Div. 737. Verdict set aside as contrary to evidence. Azzara v.. Nassau Electric R. R., 184 App. Div. 167. Vessels When captain of boat and employee are co-employees. Belt v. DuBois Sons Co., 97 App. Div. 392. e When passenger’s failure to close or lock state room will not bar recovery for stolen articles. Hart v. North German Lloyd §. 8. Co., 108 App. Div. 279. Injury to stevedore, negligence of fellow servant. Esposito v. Rock Plaster Co., 141 App. Div. 751. Negligent careless loading question for jury. Schoonmaker v. Steers (Inc.), 128 App. Div. 655. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 543 Vice Principal Where servant has duty to inspect it is continuous, not to be delegated, he is a vice principal of master. McGlynn v. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 144 App. Div. 343. Where act is that of a vice principal, railroad liable under statute. Brown v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 126 App. Div. 240. Motorman negligently starting car without signal from con- ductor and injuring conductor, he is vice principal and railroad liable. Simons v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 142 App. Div. 36. When brakeman not to be considered as person having control of train. Breed v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 181 App. Div. 492. Foreman as vice principal. Inglese v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 1383 App. Div. 198. When not fellow servant under railroad law. Riccio v. International R. R. Co., 63 Misc. 588. An engineer on a train having in his care the fireman and head brakeman is a vice principal. Reynolds v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 345. Village Where many miles of streets, not liable for injury to horse stepping on stone. McKone ». Village of Warsaw, 187 N. Y. 336. A notice to village is defective which fails to describe place of accident. Carson v. Village of Dresden, 202 N. Y. 414. Plaintiff should not be non-suited for filing copy instead of original claim when no objection made by Village Clerk and de- fendant not prejudiced. Scheer v. Village of Perry. 119 App. Div. 606. 544 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Village—Continued Village not liable for defective bridge if prior to incorporation it was under control of town. Karr v. Village of Alfred, 148 App. Div. 435. Filing of notice by sending a statement through the post office does not comply with law unless it reaches clerk in time. Karr v. Village of Alfred, 148 App. Div. 435. Notice not sufficient where it is a mere affidavit not naming facts or place of accident. Taylor v. Village of Matteawan, 122 App. Div. 406. Volunteer Servants Master not liable for negligence of one volunteering his services to his servant whereby another volunteer is injured. Ryan v. Phipps, 146 App. Div. 642. Voluntary Act Voluntary act of plaintiff and fellow servant causing break, master not liable. Shutter v. McClintic Marshall Construction Co., 122 App. Div. 293. Waiver Although master posted notices forbidding employees from rid- ing on elevator, his acquiescence question for jury. Aken v. Barnet & Aufsesser Knitting Co., 118 App. Div. 463. Waiver of requirement of city as to presentation of claim by investigating accident and examining claimant. Winter v. City of Niagara Falls, 119 App. Div. 586. When inference of waiver is a question for the jury. Wolven v. Gabler, 132 App. Div. 45. Wanton Recklessness | Wanton recklessness. Swift v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 133 App. Div. 34. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 545 Warehouseman Presumption of negligence arises when he fails to deliver goods on demand. Herrman v. New England Navigation Co., 143 App. Div. 551. Warning Failure to repeat warning to passenger on approach of danger. Edwards v. N. J. & H. R. R. R. Co., ete., 144 App. Div. 544. Negligence of employer to warn of approaching truck causing collision. Sheridan v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 101 App. Div. 534. Defendant not bound to warn of accident not to be anticipated, when accident and risk incident to employment. Moran v. Mulligan, 110 App. Div. 208. Whether master negligent in failing to give warning of trains, question for jury. Johnson v. Terry & Tench Co., 113 App. Div. 762. For jury to say whether defendant negligent in failing to warn plaintiff. Carey v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 247. Duty to warn of hidden dangers cannot be delegated. Carey v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 116 App. Div. 247. In case of negligence in not warning of danger, master’s knowl- edge of latent danger must be shown. McDonald »v. Triest, 119 App. Div. 75. It is for jury to say whether due care was given to warn plain- tiff; cannot be said obstruction is a warning to traveller. Young v. Hermann, 119 App. Div. 445. Although not provided by statute there may be common law duty to give warning, which is question for jury. Froehlich v. Interborough R. T. Co., 120. App. Div. 474. 546 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Warning—Continucd Whether railroad operating trains in subway bound to give warning of approach to workman, question for jury. Froehlich v. Interborough R. T. Co., 120 App. Div. 474. Foreman’s failure to warn of an explosion is negligence of a fellow servant. McGowan v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 143 App. Div. 1. When employee may rely on watchman stationed to give warn- ing. Schradin v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 124 App. Div. 705. Warning to employees against obstructing track. Draper v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 124 App. Div. 351. > When master not required to warn servant, a minor, of danger. Kirwan v. American Lithographic Co., 124 App. Div. 180. As to whether employee was warned question of fact for jury. Buckley v. Garden City Co., 127 App. Div. 52. Negligence by failing to give warning and instruction of danger. Pepe v. Utica Pipe Foundry Co., 182 App. Div. 458. Practice and custom as to warnings. Knickerbocker v. General R. R. Signal Co., 183 App. Div. 787. Different methods of warning. Knickerbocker v. General R. R. Signal Co., 183 App. Div. 787. Duty to warn children of danger in machinery. Kirwan v. American Lithographic Co., 197 N. Y. 413. Right to rely on warning. Kozak v. Erie R. R., 185 App. Div. 726. Where customary, failure to give warning negligence. Inglese v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 133 App. Div. 198. Whether decedent understood warning, question for jury. Reris v. Haines, 134 App. Div. 402. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 547 Warranty A purchaser of gas generator warranted safe, cannot recover for explosion to which his negligence contributed. Razey v. Colt Co., 106 App. Div. 103. Waters Act of God, how far an excuse. Greeley v. State of N. Y., 94 App. Div. 605. What proof establishes negligence in care of waste wiers. Crowley »v. State of N. Y., 99 App. Div. 52. Damage from overflow is decrease in value, not value of crops destroyed. Black v. Highland Solar Salt Co., 98 App. Div. 409. When liability of city for overflow from change of street grade is question for jury. Miles v. City of Brooklyn, 98 App. Div. 195. Duty of railroad to keep culvert for collection of water from adjoining premises unobstructed. Branson v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 111 App. Div. 737. Notice of defect must be had or given to sustain recovery. Fitzgerald v. Goldstein, 56 Misc. 677. City not liable for bursting main unless it put in use an unsafe and improperly constructed main. Kelsey v. City of N. Y., 123 App. Div. 381. Overflow from broken main; when has plaintiff made out prima facie case calling for explanation by defendant. Ettlinger v. City of N. Y., 58 Misc. 229. Where overflow of water raises presumption of negligence on part of defendant. Rothblatt v. Max Solomon, 59 Mise. 519. Leakage from water pipe is presumption of negligence which city must meet. Silverberg v. City of N. Y., 59 Misc. 492. 548 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Waters—Continued Municipality not liable for drainage water of street where no change had been made in course of surface water. Jung v. City of N. Y., 132 App. Div. 18. Ways ; Under employers’ act rock to be blasted is not a way. McGowan v. N. Y. Contracting Co., 143 App. Div. 1. Where no evidence that way not safe for its intended purpose or that plaintiff had to use it, plaintiff cannot recover. Hordern »v. Salvation Army, 124 App. Div. 674. When skids used to unload merchandise are not ways within liability act. Heiser v. Cincinnati Abattoir Co., 141 App. Div. 400. Whether reasonable way furnished, question for jury. Trentacoste v. Cronin, 182 App. Div. 907. Failure to provide ways. Simpson v. Interborough R. T. Co., 141 App. Div. 148. Witnesses Testimony of a sole witness, if believed, established plaintiff’s case, non suit improper. Johnson v. Duncan, 98 App. Div. 322. When failure to call material witness does not raise presumption against party. Eldridge v. Terry & Tengh Co., 145 App. Div. 560. Weight of uncontradicted testimony of interested witness. Abramovitz v. Tenzer, 144 App. Div. 170. Jury may credit testimony of interested witness in part only. McGahie v. McLennen, 86 App. Div. 263. When party cross-examining hostile witness cannot contradict witness. Smith v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 177 N. Y. 379. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 549 Witnesses—Continued Testimony of father as to warning given child, if believed war- rants a finding to that effect. Weintraub »v. Guilfoyle, 89 App. Div. 328. Party concluded by answer of witness as to collateral matiter. Wimmer v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 92 App. Div. 258. Admissibility of affidavit of witness as to what another witness had said. Leggett v. City of Watertown, 93 App. Div. 80. Admissions of witness admissible on question of credibility. Burke v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 98 App. Div. 219. Plaintiff by calling defendant’s employee vouches for his general credibility but may contradict a particular statement. Mead v. Huber Brewery, 104 App. Div. 10. Charge as to effect of defendant’s failure to produce witness. Robinson v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 103 App. Div. 243. Presumption as to a party’s attempt to bribe a witness to tes- tify falsely. Brown v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 105 App. Div. 395. Credibility of a witness a question of fact. Sharp v. Erie R. R., 184 N. Y. 100. Party cannot impeach own witness though subsequently called by adverse party. O’Doherty v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 113 App. Div. 636. Greater weight to be given testimony of disinterested witness than that of interested witness. Lawrence v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 114 App. Div. 16. Credibility of witness for jury always, not for the court. Lawrence v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 114 App. Div. 16. To contradict testimony by previous statements his attention must be called thereto. Loughlin v. Brassil, 187 N. Y. 128. 550 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Witnesses—Continued Change of testimony on seccnd trial suggested by intimation in appellate court raises a question of credibility. Ross v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 116 App. Div. 507. Inconsistency between testimony given at first and second trial. Fisher v. Central Vermont R. R., 118 App. Div. 446. Defendant’s liability is not to be determined solely by his credi- bility as a witness. Johnston v. N. Y. City R. R., 120 App. Div. 456. Exclusion of witnesses from room is in discretion of the Court. Philpot v. 5th Ave. Coach Co., 142 App. Div. 811. One witness sufficient to establish facts, yet if inconsistent his testimony may be rejected. Gordon v. Ashley, 191 N. Y. 186. Where owner’s testimony not contradicted nor opposed to proba- bilities nor surprising or suspicious, credibility of witness not nec- essarily question for jury. Maher v. Benedict, 123 App. Div. 579. Where unexpected or improper answer is given,duty of counsel to strike out and court to direct jury to disregard.' Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479. » y ww Credibility of witness a question for jury. ~ . Connell v. Havey, 125 App. Div. 189. Where testimony given by defendants, called by plaintiff, who are interested, their er€dibility is for the jury. Cunningham »v. Castle, 127 App. Div. 580. Defendant not precluded from contradicting plaintiff’s witness where plaintiff alleges defects and defendant denies. Keller v. Wave Realty Co., 128 App. Div. 154. Jury or court need not accept evidence of witness as true as against the party calling him. Clancy v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 128 App. Div. 141. A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW 501 Witnesses—Continued Witness unworthy of belief by contradictory statements on different trials. Bang v. N. Y. & Queens Co. R. R., 128 App. Div. 134. When jury cannot find for defendant solely because plaintiff interested witness. Giltman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 129 App. Div. 654. Evidence incompetent to impeach character. See v. Wormser, 129 App. Div. 596. Proof of contradictory statements. Quigg v. Post & McCord, 131 App. Div. 155. Credibility of witness. Gaebler v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 130 App. Div. 881. When plaintiff’s story not incredible. Austen v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 131 App. Div. 903. When testimony not incredible. Loomis v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 183 App. Div. 247. Discredit of witness by contrary statements. Wade v. Town of Worcester, 134 App. Div. 51. Plaintiff as an interested witness, his testimony raises issue for jury. Jaffa v. Nassau Electric Railroad Co., 131 App. Div. 852. Failure of party to call witness. Wade »v. City of Mt. Vernon, 133 App. Div. 389. What a witness has sworn to may be proven by judge’s notes or notes taken by another person if accurate or by any one testifying from memory. McRorie v. Monroe, 203 N. Y. 426. Where evidence of the respective parties presents radically different theories of the accident, court may take into consideration 552 A DIGEST OF NEGLIGENCE CASES—LAW Witnesses—Continued the inherent possibilities of the case and likelihood of the two stories. Carmody v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 146 App. Div. 400. A party cannot use a signed statement obtained from his own witness to impeach that witness. Bernstein v. Empire Bridge Co., 146 App. Div. 529. When from failure of plaintiff to call her daughter as a witness, the jury may infer that her testimony might be unfavorable to the plaintiff. Hollon v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 784. FACTS ABUTTING OWNERS: PAGE Side walk, injury to pedestrian .......... 0.0... c cece eect e eens 1 ns ME AW Oa HONS: oso 3 ese pae cose Sie ee ash ce ak eas dL 1 ACCIDENT: No proof that accident caused death. ... 0.2.0... ccc eee eee 1 Unavoidable accident... 0... 0... cence teen eben eens 1 Unexplained accident .. ...... 0.0... cence eee eees 1 Accident, loosening of chains. . .......... 00... cece cece ete teen eens 1 ACCOUNTANT: Failure to check accounts. ........-. 25.06 s eee ee cence centre ee renee ees 1 ANIMALS: Injuries to, Animal straying ‘on tracky.s <6. awisoveysavee reine saw iat ayaebiaeegacs wes 2 Cattle on railroad track. ..............00000000- ee ee ee 2 Cowlkilled One tracks, & -0isss:custh ial antswore ite oatuntentiad eiela w Wad vaca a bine danelainasietn als 2 * Jeilled. On tracks. saccsuts avoweauere ex onan tetaen eee eee Ne Os alesse 2 Horse falling ssc aadeiw dain oe ee hander suum eeieg Glaus xenon 3 O) fallingyace ic. ee eeu a aaeae res oeennrtee pee was Reed aes eEsRA 3 PES FeaM an jie sacie ies auade schon dseuaiaeas pea Malad sebv odes giatalalg hai naleudiena patna naa tee se atin 3 SS On TailrOad taek 5-o0.es0o salsa waiaawied wileislae anes dgultas alan Besiadaah 2 onvrailroad tack sc.cyeoeeeeacs aegewniiew pied pend iareina sin ommeenienn maine 2 fon:Failroad track vecce nanan ceademshuauriene ehewne doin cme we 3 “ umattended running away... ......... 0000: cece teen eens 2 “ wnattended running away... ...0.... 00000 ccc cece cece eee een eect tees 2 “hit by passing vehicle... 0.0... 0. octet eens 2 “ hit by passing vehicle... 2.20... eee nee 3 “frightened by automobile. ............ 020-2 c eee cence eens 2 “killed by electric shock . ........0 05.0 cece eee ete een teen eens 2 Injuries by, Horse, kicked by. -... 0. cece cece c eee etre teen Ente nee te 3 ae <0). <.c 0) ec abiehousien aus 3 554 INDEX ANIMALS— Continued Horse, kicked by’s-x. ssecun yoese sd ope era wes es anu nisveNeabi eee erne: eee | Agekéd bys ccija hi aatawa nd elied RELM AMS eee Rae Eee oe oo PUNT GS AWAY: Uc dapat ans de dae wehbe ap te Sabet autos ‘ Horses running away frightened by automobile......................---.5. “running away frightened by automobile........................005. Horse running away frightened by train.............00. 000 ccc eee eee “running away frightened by train..............0 000000 e eee eee eee “frightened by steam roller... 0.00... 0.0.02 cece eens “frightened by hole in bridge... 0.0... 2.000002 cece eee “frightened by steam from locomotive... ..............0.000000 eee SS SHYING cn Sie Se sas Gad ee AY Ae MARAE RRM OMB SES RA ha a bahia wlan So MYA tS racicata hae etait oh use aee ch a iis aus ane eta tneyen Oana an adalat “—“strightened, by fall of woods. ss i asc ererweseeacyase ec dbar bare dane AO “DIM icc Sed ses tee cea tdg tie ee le as Woe ue hse ee ae tates eh genta ‘striking person crossing street... 0.0.00... 0200 o ccc Vicious animals in cages... 2.2... eee eee - SOY AID NCABOS si. ieia iene Aaa ead MWh EAMG GER ONAR ded nele eas Waka “t wo sGhainGd | DEAR s higs ods tadecaniona neti hia ad av idenedarcaatd Dog; bitten DY! 2.04 Fetish dials caucus Danian ROS AR Pe ee A eee AREA WAY: Breaking of railing. ............. 0... .ce ceca Kinciadenadacdaedaeageees ATTORNEY: Failure to prosecute case. 06.6... cece nee cent eeeenenen AUTOMOBILE: In collision with vehicles: Ms WENA 5 it a dees ala cup eeesessSeueeaauans “with carriage... 0... ccc cece eee . “with CATTIO Gc Melber eign uti Gaeass hee aWawlenee “ ss withrvehicles.e: ay si UMM THES iéaaus RA dere gain oi aban Hide aly SAKA Salam na Meh gue 11 - “into manhole cover ............ 00. cece teen eee eee eens 11 . “over embankment ................. 0.000 e cece 11 Automobile towed by rope, catching pedestrian..................000 000005 il Automobile hitting conductor stepping from car............... 0.0000 ee eee ML AWNING: Fallof beatin from. ca.s ce cee van Soegy ens ote Hee Pea eames nies ewe ed Ml Fall of support of, struck by wheel hub............00.0.00.ececeeueeeseees 12 BANKS: Paympdorged draitiiss: cts sar eset ia Melk aha Wadsa daa easwodw hee 12 BAGGAGE: Left in car not returned ........... 0... eee eee eens 12 ° BAILMENT: Hired van running over pedestrian. ........... 0.0.00. c eee eens 12 Bailment, horse left in highway, stolen................ 00... cece eee eens 12 BICYCLES: Bicycles, collision with automobile... ............0.. 0.000. e cece eee ee 12 f “with automobile. ......... 00.0... 13 as “with pedestrian... 6.0... eee eee omeapeas 12 at “© with pedestrian... 0.66... e eee 12 INDEX 557 BICYCLES—Continued . PAGE Bicycles, hit by train while crossing track..........-...0cceesee renee ere ees 12 : “ “train while crossing track. ...... 20... ccc cece eee e cent eens 13 ee He SD Tine ot ACH PUE iq ga-niweeeouwdnr uations eeateeuees 13 Bicycle, ridden into manhole... 2.2.0.0... 2c cece cee nee .. 1B BLASTING, FALLS FROM: Blasting; fall of TOK: 05.6, da daces ens dose tne de hk b a da RRS ENA Tae 13 o fall Of ROCK 25,.dx. 2 sid tne eg vals OAS A AG aah a pee SEUSS Maat wane 14 e fallof 106k 2 ec-cc sen ced aae aa es Srigteee i diakonmtalals Haumecadd Ca Seto 14 stone thrown BY: gues cece adage be caged Sees e eee ye eee ead eawieies 13 > “stone ‘thrown Dyed: se eeu ces saa dee eee oa ie Be ae 14 7 Stone: thrown by's~/e6.cctncevietssig te oes ase ve eee aes Oye ees 15 ptone thrown bye yi... cei cot ease cee dba ead tie yt ae Sad eae e ae eae 13 “injured by, while on highway. ... 2.0.0.2... 0. e cece erence ee eeees 13 sn injured by, while on highway... . 2.0.0.0... cc cece eee ee ene eens 14 “explosion premature..,....... Ble iaaly Sas ea a Reso hace alent se 14 e explosion premature... 0.0.00... ccc cece eee e nee eee eenes 14 os explosion, second explosion.... 0.0.00... 000s cece cece teen neeeees 14 ee on adjoining premises, injuries from. ............ 000s eee ee eee 14 a on adjoining premises, injuries from. .......... 0.0... e cece e eee 14 s on adjoining premises, INJUPIES {OMe 6 ak ak ne A a peewee cae ES 14 . breaking water pipe. ......... ccc cee ene eee eee e ene eees 13 BOOKKEEPER: Bookkeeper, failure to check accounts... 2.1.2... 0.00. cece eee eee eee eee 15 BOOM: ‘Breaks and fall of; 3 cig oda Sse Gan Gn ewe BeC UN Wak Ae eee ene 15 BREAKS: Break of band around kiin.. 2.2.0.0... ccc cee tener eens 15 WS COP Ch DlSie aaa aaa A ORGS ee Sk wea Ree Edna delee Rede a ee 15 BES SOF DO WSGT ors ane eleva ais Hs conven eee Ste enn tata aye yea aches Se ei guanvian Pawn 15 “of defective rope: siacsesewieaecie ere: skeeee eae see eee ete Sees teas U5 (© Of Steam pipe ss: nos saagiea ghee hiae Rosa See eaW eK eee RE 15 OF Wrenh ies... koeitleedan Seana duinda aaguiaraaamowadeud edule iain aeS 15 BRAKEMAN: 3 Brakeman, crushed between running boards............-.00::eeeeeee ee eens 16 a crushed between bumpers... ............. cece eee eee eee ees 16 558 INDEX BRAKEMAN—Continued PAGE Brakeman, crushed between cars while coupling .................0-0+-00005. 17 - crushed between cars while coupling ....................-0 0005. 17 . crushed between cars while coupling fiat dig talag Menta a yea antl sie awl aie 4 16 if Init by: bride: sc: Sanucag pcatwse ae auss ta¥e qeolen Reedieves Bowen es 16 ey Tits DY DUCE: 45 --c.xeee and awed Inelh apse a Mae awa en ome ah hank 16 “ hit: by brid G6: «5. ue were eed ove eine a wae einai Rea iv es hit by boxes from car.... 0.2.00. 0 0.0 cece eens 16 a hit by roof of building... .............0.. 00002 eee cece eee 16 ai fall from car, defective brake .. ........ 00.0... e cece eee eee 17 m thrown by sudden movement of train......................000. 16 “ run down by locomotive while backing... .................2.... 17 os jumping from train and killed. ........ Bi ite reais Bee eas ae ee VW of jumping from train and killed. .....................005. sarees 17 BRIDGES: Fall of plank frome (casa we 3d Sinbad om driweass eases gar aavon UREA a Sl Pe 17 Bridges, fall of bridge .co005 64 Savi Gada aed abi y eeeade pMdauie 4G pee ba vene 18 “fall OF bridge. &. an: Sicke cece eke beewad ed earn Lake Wawa ndladaies 18 “ fall of bridge ............ tee ale aa ydecutes adencesaskeseseneren 18 fall Of DrdBE occ cess anemone de aeayanh ss oben) eee Ses Cen Lay eS 19 “Fall Of bridge:. sos. 268 Gen da hs Sa a ens See Ape eee ea 17 “fall of bridge on theatrical stage. ............000.. 00000000 c eee ee 19 “fall from unguarded approach. ...........00. 0.000000 cece eee eee 17 “horse backing off of bridge... . 0.0.0.0... cece cee eee eee 18 “horse backing off of bridge, frightened by hole..................... 18 “falling over rail of bridge .. 6.2... 62. cee 19 “« driving off bridge, no side rail. ..... 2... 18 “horse hit by car on bridge...... 2.1... cece ee eee eee ae 19 “hitting head against moving drawbridge.......................0.. 19 “walking off from qpen drawbridge. .................0.000000000 00. 18 “vehicle hit by car on narrow bridge... ........ 0.0. ee 18 “low bridge, brakeman hit by. .........0..0.000 000000 c cece 19 ee defective town bridge, injuries from.... 2.0.0.0 2 2. eee 18 on fall through hole in bridge when plank flew up..................... 17 Falling from bridge, pushed by train hitting blocking... .................... 18 BUILDINGS, COLLAPSE OF: Buildings, collapse of, killing employee of contractor.................00.004- 20 “cr fall of, on which plaintiff stood. ........00.0.00 0000s 19 BUILDINGS, Buildings, BUILDINGS, Buildings, INDEX COLLAPSE OF—Continued fall of, by excavation......... 0.00.00: e cece ees fall of partially completed building being inspected............... fall of interior of structure causing injury... ..................... walls collapsing of, injuring pedestrian....................2.004. walls collapsing of, on which plaintiff was employed. ............. ACCIDENTS IN AND ABOUT: burns from fixtures received by janitor. .............0....000 000s caught by: Iron girders 3 vests erage sews es See Ween eee ea fallsoF ATCH 2.43 Ssuegon Santee oasch ons aay ae Sea PaO ea fall of brick from, injuring employee........................00-- fall of brick from, injuring employee. ...................000005 fall of brick from, injuring employee... ....................00000- fall’ of brick from chimney. ..............00 000 cece fall of brick from wall... 2.0... eens fall of board insecurely nailed. ............0.. 0.00000 fall of chimney struck by derrick... ...........0002..0 000 ce cece fall of piece of iron hitting employee. ............0...... 00000000 fall of object, no protecting shed ............0 0.0002 c ccc eee fallof plank tits yes Gah aie 4 Hea he Rae Re eee eae bs fall of stone injuring pedestrian ............... 0000.02 cece eee fall of tile through opening in floor. .........................00. fall of wall injuring trespasser...........020..0.0 000020 fall through hatchway while examining for repairs ................ fall through opening in floor.... .......... 0... e eee eee ee fall through opening in floor from step ladder... ................. fall into pit in building under construction ...................... fall over obstacle at entrance. 2.0.0.6... eee eee fall from roof of, carried down by paper. ............. 0000000 e eee fall from tipping of plank in run way .....................0.0.000. fall from tripper car leaving track............0..00200 000000 e eee hit by object dropped or thrown by employee.................... personal injuries received in. ........ 200... eee eee repairs, negligence in causing injury. .............-..0..0 00. e eee slipping of metal girders breaking leg .................-0.000005. injuries to, from building operation on adjoining premises ......... injuries to, from blasting causing vibration ...................... injuries to, from fire caused by burning of automobile............. PAGE 19 19 19 19 20 20 21 21 20 21 22 21 22 21 21 22 21 20 21 22 20 21 560 INDEX BROKERS: PAGE Failure to enforce bond..............: cece cece eee reece ence reese ene tees 23 BURNS: Burns, by use of fixtures ordered by janitor... ...... 0.0 cece cence eee e eee 23 CABLE: Hit by barrel carried on cable... 1.6... eee tenes 23 CARS: Cars; brake defectives icc vieans vied dese idee Sean SRE oe 23 “coupling locomotives together improperly...........-..... 00sec seas 23 ‘* fall of window on hand of passenger... 1.0... 6... 0 ccc cece cece eee ee 23 “« slipping through door in bottom of .. 6.0... eee eee eee 24 “sudden starting of, injuring repairer... 0.2... cee cee ee ees 24 CARRIER: Attendant attending freight train injured... ...........0.0 0.00.00. cece eee 24 Animals, vicious, injuring child. 2.2.0... cent eee 25 Carrier, baggage delivered to wrong person... ........-2..00 20 cc cece ences 24 «baggage robbed by employee .. ... 2... eee cece eet enna 24 “ paggage lost on steam ship ....... 0... ccc eee eee cen eens 25 “baggage, failure to deliver... 0.0.0... cece ee eee 25 “baggage, failure to deliver... 00.0... ccc cece eens 25 “baggage, loss of traveling bag in sleeping car..................... 25 ‘‘ fire on car through defective equipment... ...........0... 0.000 ce ee 25 “. freezing of products in transportation............0.. 0000.00 0 ceca 24 “goods damaged in transportation. . ............0 00.0... e cece eees 24 «goods damaged by fire.... 2.0... cece cece e eee eeeeeaes 24 “horse injured in shipment. ........0 0... e cece ccc cece euee 25 “leakage of goods, failure to transier.-s.citsh ante tandd Wa aeaneud eaeae 25 «passenger on boat falling... 2.0.0... ccc cece ence neces 24 «passenger injured by closing door .. ......... 00. c0 cece eee ee ees ange Oe se cable way, barrel passing causing injury...................cc0e ce ee 24 CAUGHT: Caught, in set screws on unguarded shaft... 0.0... 0.0. cece cece ccc eeuueue 30 ‘“« in cog wheels of machine by fall... 2.2.0... cece eee eee re 28 HO Gn arOn' BIrdel dca. ak cats ways taly Tas aes sane aera para ace tae 29 “« by belt on starting of pulley. .......0 0... eee cece 28 CAUGHT— Continued PAGE Caught, by key in revolving shalt. « ‘ “ambulance and wagon. ...........c cece eee eens 38 nf “« ambulance and bicycle... ..............00. 0 eee 39 a “ “automobiles, careless driving...................-. 39 mf “ “ picycle and vehicle .................0 00 cece eee ee 39 COLLISION BETWEEN TRAINS AND VEHICLES: Collision between train and vehicle at farm crossing...................0.00. 39 f ‘€ and vehicle at grade crossing... .............000000 39 i ss “ and vehicle at grade CYOSSING. 2... eee 40 if nt “and vehicle at grade crossing injuring passenger in vehicle ...... ........0. Seas Mtty canoe esate use e ae) inne sack ttt adore eee OR 40 Collision between train and vehicle at grade crossing injuring passenger in VOMICIE 3h ncaa uke aati eat hele dl AB iis. Selene tks Molt onl nase 40 Collision between train and vehicle at grade crossing, no warning... ......... 40 s “‘ and vehicle at grade crossing, injuring teamster....... 40 a a “and sleigh at grade crossing................c0c0eeue 39 is i: “and truck at grade crossing. .............0.c0ceseee 40 re ae “and truck unloading near track.. ................-.. 39 ' 2 “and van at grade crossing................0.0000.0005 40 “ f “and milk wagon at grade crossing.. ................. 39 COLLISION BETWEEN AUTOMOBILES AND VEHICLES: Collision of automobile with bicycle. ...........0000 00000 c cece eee ee 41 - “e with carriages. 2c. ccs cea ea deen caaet aban eee eae bs 40 of with horse and wagon. ................ 0c ccc eeeaee 41 at with phaeton ... 20.2.0... eee cee eee ees 41 a ie AUTRE baw uae area sie waded Awan eniwaraecanpens 41 af Hf wath: truck sash Wake ein paces oe Shee oa e ey 40 fe “ with vehicle on track. ..........0.0.0. 000.0 c cece eeees 41 ee with vehicle striking telephone pole ................. 41 COLLISION BETWEEN AUTOMOBILES AND TRAINS: Collision of automobile with train at crossing... ..........0... 000. c cece eee 41 ee with train at crossing... ............. 000 cece eee eee 41 i ef with train at crossing... ................0. cee eee 41 c OM swith SPAN Bb CHORE yoo 5.0 bscenkayaoandedewes des 42 af with train at crossing... 2.0.0.0... 00. c eee eee eee 42 is with train at crossing... ........ 0... e cee ee eee 42 Motor truck disabled, collision with train at grade crossing................. 41 566 INDEX COLLISION BETWEEN AUTOMOBILE AND STREET CAR: PAGE Collision between automobile and street car at street crossing, failure to look.. 42 Ex = “and street car at street crossing ............... 42 = a “and street car at street crossing ............... 42 Collision, automobile running parallel with track... .......00000 000000000005 42 COLLISION, VESSELS: Collision between vessels'at se4.... 200000000 ccc cc cece cece eceveveeesevees 43 Collision between drifting scow and dock ..........0...00 00000 c cece eens 42 Collision between tug boat'and pile driver ......0.000.00 00000 c cece eee 42 Collision with vessel moved from dock... .....0.0.00.00 000 cece cence 42 COLLISION BETWEEN STEAM TRAINS: Collision between steam trains ..........0 0.00 c cee cece eect eee eens 44 7 of? Sstea mt rains .e4 craHaw ae peas guia ee eae ere eet 44 “trains, disobedience of orders. ..........0..0..0.0.00 eee 43 _ : “disobedience of orders. ...........0.0 000000 c eee e eee 43 a i. “(mistake in orders... 0.0... e eee eee 43 a - ‘failure to observe signals ......................2.. 44 a ““ erushed between cars... 2... 2 ee eee eee eee 44 - “ears, negligence of dispatcher....................0.0000-. 44 a “trains, overworked crew .....0.00.0.00000000 000 eee eee eee 44 “ q i esa bled strates: 5 acuvevale eee an Sonate nus We oes 43 . “ ‘loosening of brake. ... ........00...0000000. 0200s » 43 8 “« misplaced switch ........00000000000.0.0.0.00 0. ccc eee 43 - a s in yard, injuring fireman. ............0........... 43 es 7 “of different roads... 202000. e eae 43 et = og tunnels vince Giwiaaaeea chs daes saci beeen atabbaaces 43 " i SS GWDMEGO. ou arseeled pune als neon Sauanen fn Ban IS . 48 ms a “causing freight to fall on truckman................ 44 a COLLISION BETWEEN STREET CARS AND STEAM CARS: Collision between street cars and train at crossing injuring passenger......... 44 Collision between street car and train injuring conductor. .................. 44 COLLISION BETWEEN PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLES: Collision between pedestrian and bicycle........0.. 00.00.00 ccc cece cece ee 45 ee us af BUC: DICH Cle area. wardens Boma ste Fe et) oho een 45 “6 “ a and truck, boy run down..................... 45 Collision, car injuring railroad employee crossing track ..................... 45 INDEX 567 COLLISION, MISCELLANEOUS: PAGE Collision, between locomotive and obstructions along track.................. 45 Collision, striking against gas fixtures in dark storeroom.................... 45 COLLISION BETWEEN STREET CARS: Collision between cars. .....0 2.60. e cece cece ne eeneenas -46 “ *e « “SUVOCU CANS 45a ved se be clad auah ad cae naa oy eae Sua 47 ns “street cars injuring motorman... ........................ 46 ne “street cars injuring motorman......................2000. 45 s “street cars injuring motorman... ........................ 46 a “ cars crushing hand of passenger... ................-. 0000. 46 a “ears on different roads..........0.0...0000000 0000 c eee ee 45 . “ears on different roads......00...00 00000 45 “ “cars, rear end collision. ........ 0.0.0. c cece eee eee eee 46 " “cars in subway injuring passenger....................00.. 46 = «ears, no brakes on incline... 20... 2.02. eee ee 46 a “ears throwing down passenger... ...........00...0.00000. 46 ¢ “cars, elevated railroad... 0.2.0.2... 0.00.00 e cece eee eee 46 7 EO ABA MOAtS ae cep ee ak ape hal ea ele ae edo det 46 i. "Y Gais tO ay wench eihea te hehe Make Mane aa 45 o “ears crossing over switch .. 0.0.0.0 47 “« ears pushed along track by employees... ................. 47 COLLISION BETWEEN VEHICLES AND STREET CARS: Collision between vehicle and car... 2.0.2.0... cece cee eee eee eee 49 - “vehicle and car... 0... eee eee ne 50 ut ee” “Sy@hielesand Carin. anc hacay wed wih uewausad Mags we ews sew ees 51 is wehicleand. Gab. oi 22.00 ofoceoduceo pea ee eee pew beeen 49 es “vehicle and car... 0.2.0.0... 2c eee eee Gant eynavteeag eee x 53 ut *S . vehiclesande@areis sae eseniee k PeeWee va es A Gee eee eae 54 e “vehicle and car at grade crossing .. ............. 00.00 e ee 47 + “« vehicle and car at grade crossing ...................0004. 47 i «vehicle and car at grade crossing ...............--..0000, 47 i. “« vehicle and car at grade crossing .. ...........-.. 0.00000. 48 “vehicle and car at grade crossing ....................000. 49 “vehicle and car at grade crossing... ...........0..0.0 eae 49 «« vehicle and car at grade crossing... ................0.004, 49 . ‘* vehicle and car at grade crossing.....................04. 49 a ‘* vehicle and car at grade crossing... ........-........0-5. 49 “ «vehicle and car at grade crossing... 2.0.2... 0.00... e ee 50 568 INDEX COLLISION BETWEEN VEHICLES AND STREET CARS—Continued PAGE Collision between vehicle and car at grade crossing ...............0-eeee eee 50 e “vehicle and car at grade crossing ................2....00. 50: ‘“* vehicle and car at grade crossing ................e2eee eee 50 “ “vehicle and car at grade crossing... ...........-20+0e0e0ee 50 s “vehicle and car at grade crossing .. ... ere ea cnla as 51 “vehicle and car at grade crossing ...... i sinloti as Muckd e Siae este ty 52 iS “vehicle and car at grade crossing ................2..20005 53. i “vehicle and car at grade crossing ...............-.--00055 54 e “« vehicle and car at grade crossing... .............-20.e0 eee 54 es “vehicle and car at grade crossing at night................. 48 mf “ear, vehicle and wagon ............. ccc cece eee eee ences 47 “ “ear, vehicle and wagon ............ 0 cece eee cece ee eees 47 " «ear, and vehicle while driving on track in street .. ... eae 55 : “car and vehicle while driving on track in street ........... 47 a “ear and truck wagon... 0.2... 0. cece e eee eee e ee 48 es “ear and truck wagon .. 2... 6... eee 49 re “ear and truck wagon .. 2.2... fo. ccc eee eee eens 50 gar iamd ‘trek WAROM caso a cs cece adn 4a ea oad ge sea ovedae 53 em “ear and truck wagon... ... 0.0... ce cece cece cece ences 48... i “ear and truck wagon ......... .. 00. ccc eee ee eee cence 48. = “ear and truck wagon... 00.0.0 c cece cee eee ence eens 52 7 NCAR aNd “VaNl on. Ou seatuniee ho @auw ite twa ox wa deo ue eee an 50: “A Se COR ANG VAM. ox oitatva ds lates aiet dias Coiled ol a, Tada 50: = BE? Gary ame Wet ses scale Maeve ie a ese Ach alt 8 act. 50: e “car and truck partly on track. ......... ihe ota digeiayees 51 a “truck and car while crossing street... ............0.0-0000. 47 ef “car and loaded truck, injuring driver... .................. 50 e “car and truck injuring passenger of car............. taeda suns 51 f “car and truck injuring passenger of car................... 5S uy “car and,truck driven by plaintiff...................0..0., 51 as “car and truck causing truck to strike plaintiff.............. 52 at “car and truck, car passenger hit by shaft of truck.......... 53. fe “ear and truck injuring boy riding on truck... ... Pecoha laches «ee. 54 ef “car and truck driver thrown out... ................-..... 48 as “car and express wagon .. 2.2.60... eee e cece ec eeee. 52 ee ‘‘ car and express wagon at intersecting streets.............. 47 as “car and express wagon, injuring passenger on car. ......... 53 es “ear and oil wagon, failure to furnish shield for motorman... 48. car and vehicle near track . INDEX 569 COLLISION BETWEEN VEHICLES AND STREET CARS—Continued PAGE Collision between car and vehicle near track. ..........0. 0000 ccc eeeeeeaees 49 fe “ear and loaded vehicle............... 0. ccc cece cece ee eeee 51 “ “car and sprinkling wagon crossing street... ............5-- 48 = “ear and delivery wagon, injuring passenger on car......... 49 a “ear and steam roller.......... 00.0 cece ccc eee eee eens 51 és «ear and insurance patrol wagon.............. 000s e eee ee 51 m «ear and push cart of street department................... 51 . “ car and ice Wagon... 6.0.00... cece cee cee eleven eens sees 52 e “car and ice wagon injuring passenger... ................0.. 52 i “and bicycle crossing street. ... 0.0... 0.0 cece eee eee e eee 52 o ‘“‘ car and vehicle, car coming from the rear................. 52 = “ear and vehicle, car coming from the rear................. 54 “ “ear and vehicle at intersecting of streets.................. 52 “ “ear and horse and wagon left unattended ................. 53 ES ‘“« ear and cab at intersecting streets. ..............0000000- 53 us cS Car and WAGON si .iosdeke sea cee eciwehe ake tars adentes 54 i “Ga and WARN iss Gains Soe Aka eG S Mel eke esos ee Meee 53 . “ear going at excessive speed, with wagon, at intersecting SULCCTS 4 coisas ice PS cathe isch a sega ba pen emcee lace ied oataad as eevee elds Bantuan aang ean 54 Collision between car and wagon going at excessive speed in fog............. 54 pz ‘* ear and horse and wagon on city street... ................ 54 t “ear and horse and wagon on city street... ..............0. 52 si of car with vehicle, overturning vehicle ....................000. 54 “« between car and hook and ladder truck .. ........... 00sec eee 54 s “car and wagon on barrow bridge. ..................000005 53 = “ear and carriage which plaintiff was driving............... 52 COLD STORAGE: Damage to fruit, excessive temperature................ apie Seow ates 55 CONCRETE: Concrete structure collapsing. ............... 2.00. e eee e eee ee eee 55 CONTRACTOR: Contractor’s car hitting plaintiff while crossing track ....................... 55 Contractor’s employee on railroad hit by train, failure of flagman to warn.... 55 Contractor, independent contractor injured by fall from cable... ............ 55 Contractor, causing obstructions along tow path of canal ................... 55 CONDUCTOR: Conductor, caused to fall from car into pit by sudden movement of car....... 55 570 INDEX CRANE: Traveling crane injuring employee standing on girder... ............ 0 ..2.05- DAMAGE: Damage, resulting from injury... 2.0.2... 0.020 eens Damage, to fruit, excessive temperature. ... 2.0... 0... cece eee Damage, to products in transportation by freezing. . ... rcogun bee Mea A defscnaraadicias DANGEROUS WEAPONS: Dangerous weapons, injuries from loaded revolver. ............--:000 eee ee- DERRICK: Derrick, arm of, extending over track hitting engineer. .................... “breaking of boom causing fall... 2.0... ee eee “breaking of boom under weight ................0.. 0.000 cece eee eee «fall of boom due to rusty cable ..........0 00000000 cc cece eee “fall of boorn not fastened down... ........ 2... cee eee ““pucket, hit bys. achsaia saat naw tae pongo aceceedeierws beegeeie oS “buckeR hit: Dy vs tcc cacnGhed Shacid mde has valk ey wa me EOE TW RENE -@able-ot; breaking... 2ac2 eq neueats cawacavewe eee cae reees Soca hey 3 OG «SPAT Lire Sees ts tye th ea ate aie Boh el Ud Bae ec te ea ne een aN OS SAS OF S56 a Joie en wig k's a tas matte Nig Wheeeess By erty he waa ceg ans oS Se at Salgeees seats OOo SSE ISOE Sting dente hd siyin aie hit ele aa ae oo ele sae Shad Ors Gee da das ea a wd “fall of, breaking of derrick leg ..........0000 00000000 cece ee “fall of, breaking of guy rod..... 0.0.0.0. 0000000 cee eee “~~ fall of, caused by leg breaking... 2.2.0.0... 0000 eee eee “fall of, breaking of derrick leg .....00 00000000000 eee “fall of, breaking of guy rope. ......000000 00000000 e eens “fall of, defect in iron band. ....... 0.000020 “fall of, unsecured guy rods.... 0.200.000 0 0000000 ccc cece ee cee cree “fall of, impropergoperation ..........02.0.0000000.00.000. Ed heane oe “fall of, failure to anchor... .........00 00000 ccc cece ccc cena eae “fall of, failure to fasten boom... 2.0.0.0... 0000000 e cece ““ fall.of, iron section cutting off hand.........0000.00000.000...0... “partial overturning OL tha peasy ota ane Saas ats ole aac Ae ee ea “fall of, legs not properly stayed.. 2.0.0.0... 000 cece eee DERAILMENT: Derailment of locomotive, icy track... .....000.0 0000 ccc cece cece. BY SEPCCUICAR, G8 wos mahv an ialanen were tee SR nba ede Oris ahi ote PAGE 56 56 56 56 56 57 56 57 58 56 57 57 56 56 56 57 57 57 56 57 INDEX 571 DERAILMENT—Continued PAGE Derailment of street car, horse shoe in slot of track ...........-......0.0055 58 5 “ street car injuring plaintiff on platform... ................... 58 oe “ street car, defective safeguard... 0.0.0.0... 0.000 cece eee eee ee 59 * “ street car, injuring employee near track... ..............---. 59 - “ of train running over cow, no fence.......... Ech atayee aaa 59 DEPOSIT MONEYS: Paid by bank on forged drafts.........0. 00.00 c cece cece net eee nens 59 DOOR WAY: Door way, fall of person, guard rail falling..............0.. 000. e ee eee 59 “ "baggage car door opening injuring passenger...................5. 59 “ car door closed on passenger’s hand by conductor... ............. 59 7 car door closed on passenger’s fingers... .:.........000. 00s eeu eee 60 - car door closed on passenger’s hand. ..................0 00200 e ee 60 : glass door cutting hand of passenger....:...... tone nae eames eas 60 ee store door hitting customer... ...:2.....00.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.02000200000005. 60 dock door talline crnaiike awa ieee eee esse baea ees eae s eres 59 a. trap door falling’: soni see vse Bec ca 2c kse eee ah SLE TATE OSES 60 e vehicle door shutting injuring passenger... ............-...--0-05 59 DOCK: Dock, fall through: hole:10) i. 255.45 jn sca o nce gon ee sone ara ny ao 8 ace ele HE «Saree ones 60 DRUGS: Drugs, improper label'ng of... 60.2... teens 60 Drugs, carbolic acid given to customer. .......0.... 000 e eee eee 60 Drugs, tablets containing calomel. ........... Lipitnondebie dieieoueeeaeds 60 DYNAMITE: Unexpected explosion cf, after blasting Leach. ianon tina oot alae PAA GRRE ee 61 ELECTRICITY: Electrical shocks, defective insulation. .........0.... 00000 c eee eee eee 61 “ «defective insulation. ........00...62. 000 c cece eee eee 62 af “defective insulation. ........ 0.0.0.0 cece ee eee 63 ss «(defective insulation. ......0..0.00 0000s 64 es “defective insulation. ............. 0.00 e cece eee eee 65 ee «defective installation of WireS... 00.00... cece cence eee 64 572 INDEX ELECTRICITY—Continued PAGE Electrical shocks, defective installation of wires........... 00.0004 e ee ee eens — 65 i “defective wiring causing fire.. 2.2.0.2... 0.0... cc eee eee une 54 a “contact with Wires ..... 2... eect eee ene eee 65 si Me ~fallen wane +: esciwcrsce de ay paw Sh ieee ene ee Sela es 61 eS Sy fallen wire cessive baht cere callalsle! eres Wh atln phiale ean tal 62 " O° fallen Wate oisieinp ae dane eh cdeee Se Sd Pe 63 < GE PAN ON WATE 2.0% Sandie ects eee Bae AE ak Mee eas eae a alee 64 _ AS fallen Wile jy dig ge Vag eae Cae wa Baa Waele ae es 61 “ “from changing wire .. 2.22.0... 0. eee eee eee eee eee eee 63 c HS othird Pallaars «dene eae ea ew es See mapa sues eka ... 61 7 “third rail......... so nkenmas ee eWae ae EA SKU H Ea ee Edd Cae 62 7 > PIPE PAM 2s oak ag daa Hebwed ae OAS LO eS Gest Dawes Pea RRS 62 = HO” Aer PEL: sdk tile cuales Ans AG a eh Ahudhls Gnawa cera ear atslialaaus Baderay 63 c So telephone line s.2 220042245 oa eee ws paWahuei den Gauges 61 fF “telephone line ..... 06... eee eee e eens 61 rs “« telephone line, contact with electric wire. ................. 63 “current turned on by foreman.... ...........0 0000 eee eae 62 " “ eurrent turned on while employee at work. ............... 62 Electrical shock, from feed cable.. ................20000 0c eae Jaen neas 63 o “from wire carrying current to third rail... .............00. 63 ‘i “from breaking of transformer. ............ 000: cee eeeeeeee 63 a “from broken electric Wire. 2.0.0.0... cece cece eee es 64 ns “from contact with live wire.. 2.2.00. 2 220 cee eee 64 “ “* from live wire, contact with wire of another company...... 64 “ “while trimming lamps ...........0..0.00..0 0000 ccc eeeeeeee 63 es “from metallic measuring tape...............0... ce eee eee 63 iS “from incandescent near are wire. .............05. foipie alee’ 64 m “from defective hood on lamp...............00c ee eee sete, 162) es “from pole along public street... 0.00.00. ccc cece cee eee 62 i “while working NAN WITE «kena ok eek Sea eaey ceeds See etiens 61 i “from leakage of electricity .. 0.00... eee cece eee ee 61 s sf while stringing wires... 2... 0. ...ceccccccecsesceeen sae ae 62 as “while cutting limbs from trees... 2.00.0... ccc cece eee a.» 62 ss “injuring passenger on car... .....000.. 00. 62 as *” OXPlOBION': ON CAT’ yea sinreg Woes Sa sky dee one Ae ew ae 64 fe “from wire while repairing defective car...............000- 65 Electricity, fall of electric light pulley from cross arm. ................0000 65 Electricity, fall of lamp in store... 2.2.0... cece eee cece ce eenaeue 65 Electricity, fall of elevator, changing wire on motor... .........00ccccceceee 65 INDEX 573 ELEVATOR, FALL OF OBJECTS IN SHAFT: PAGE Fall of bundle of iron pipe... . 0.2... cece cece cece cence eee eeneeseenees 66 Elevator, fall of dumb waiter, defective rope. ... 0.0... ...cccecececeeeeeees 66 ss fall of door, breaking of counterweight................0ceeeeeeees 65 “ fall of goods, failure to guard... .... 0.0.0... ccc cece cece eee eeeeee 65 a fall of iron roller, door partly closed... 2.0.0.0... ccc cee eeeeeeee 66 es fall of material from hod elevator... 2.2.0.0... 0. cece cee e eee ee 66 - fall of pipes raised through window... ............0-.eeeee eee eee 66 eh falliof. plaster: :.sesseuse peed okv ewer teers 4 Surah nea oda easels 66 i fall of trap door’: ia scccweuareiayaleeiie de Sides Wrduaad a eae seceded aa a a 66 = fall of broken wheel... 2.0... 0... cece cece cece ete e ee eeeeenes 66 hit by counterweight in shaft. ........... dis ayOula shel anotessr ease ceteraieiale ae 66 ELEVATOR, FALL OF PERSONS FROM: Elevator, fall from elevator platform... ..... sha eti ts hes cataract cides in ard ipa aan aa 66 a fall down shaft while boarding. ........... 00.0... ccc ceee ee cecees 67 a fall of elevator cage: osiescsa ewes cise overs Gee dew ee eras ke 68 “ fall of elevator cage ...... 0.6... e nena 68 _ fall of elevator cage, failure to guard or repair.................... 67 ° fall of elevator cage, failure to stop going up..................... 67 fall of elevator cage, changing wire of motor................... gas GF a fall of elevator cage, breaking of cable... ...........2.0....000 00 67 ‘ fall of elevator cage, breaking of head piece. ..................... 67 s fall of elevator cage because of drum shirring off... ............... 67 NS fall of elevator, defective cable not babbitted..................... 68 “ fall of elevator cage, overloaded... 2.0.0... 00... c cee cece 68 ¢ fall of elevator cage, defective in construction and operation........ 68 e fall of elevator cage, breaking of chains... ....................005 69 . sudden movement of, engineer failing to obey signals... ........... 69 “falling of freight elevator... .........-..-......00.0004 Resection 67 s falling of freight elevator... ........00 002.0 ccc e eee e ee 67 i falling of freight elevator... 0.0.2.0... 0.0. c cece eee eee eee 68 « falling of freight elevator, defective clamping... .................. 68 falling of freight elevator, breaking of cable. ..................... 69 ad fall of counterweight . 0.0.0.0... 00. teenies 68 r fall of hoisting elevator... 0.0.0.0... cece cece cence eens 68 - fall of hoisting elevator, failure to guard ....................2.04. 67 a fall of hoisting elevator, failure to guard signal rope............... 68 ee fall of mine elevator bucket, defective cable...................... 68 574 INDEX ELEVATOR, FALL DOWN ELEVATOR SHAFT: Elevator, fall down elevator shaft, door open, unguarded. .................. ef, “ ELEVATOR, Elevator, ce c “ “e elevator shaft, door open, unguarded . . elevator shaft, doos open, unguarded . . elevator shaft, door open, unguarded . . elevator shaft, door open, unguarded . . elevator shaft, door open, unguarded , . elevator shaft, door open, unguarded. . elevator shaft, door open, unguarded . . elevator shaft, door open, unguarded . . elevator shaft, door open, unguarded . . Se ee ee eee el elevator shaft, sudden starting of elevator............... elevator shaft, sudden starting........ elevator shaft, sudden starting........ elevator shaft, sudden stopping of, causing load to fall... . elevator shaft, backed into ........... elevator shaft, backed into ........... elevator shaft, backed into ........... Dee ee et wwe elevator shaft, elevator having been moved. ............. elevator shaft, elevator having been moved. ............. elevator shaft, elevator having been moved. ............. elevator shaft at night, open, unguarded ................ elevator shaft at night, open, unguarded ................ elevator shaft open and unguarded at night............. elevator shaft, breaking of elevator. . .. elevator shaft, breaking of elevator. . .. elevator shaft, breaking of iron support................. elevator shaft when putting truck on platform... ........ elevator shaft, obeying foreman’s instructions............ elevator shaft in hotel. .............. elevator shaft cause of accident not known.............. elevator shaft between cage and side of elevator shaft, insecure scaffold in shaft Shalit ok eee cee elevator shaft operator leaving cage caught between floors. elevator shaft used to convey materials INJURIES FROM OPERATION OF: injuries from operation of, caught between floors and top of door. .. employee caught by gate employee caught by gate PAGE 69 70 70 70 71 70 70 71 71 71 69 70 72 71 70 70 69 70 71 71 71 71 71 69 70 71 69 69 70 72 70: 69 69 72 = INDEX 575 ELEVATOR, INJURIES FROM OPERATION OF—Continued ‘PAGE Elevator, foot caught .. 00.0.0... ccc cece cee vetueueutuenenes 72 = POOUCRUEITG 2, creat acet tee pe ee amr nam neha tel he 73 2 foot cCaueht ar: sauces mira eddies dee sie Lede sel akadesa deed 74 e foot COU CNT oes Mais Mein ease eines tikes Oe Some ara Sees 72 e ead caught. a: ci.ha 8 abstain tae a Aes Se inn sande bepaetoeleas 74 _ it: Fay Lem ence toe apts card seals occas oad aa Goats 72 a injuries from operation of, no guard or warning................... 73 = injuries while working on door of shaft .......... Dieta astaneicn aay 73 . injured while being carried up in. ................000000 0000 eee 73 os injured by falling on bucket of grain elevator. .................... 73 injured while entering door of. ............ 0.0. cece ee eee ee eee 73 Me injured from breaking of rope... .......6. 5.0.0. c cece eee eee 74 a injury to employee standing partly in door..................0000. 74 “6 injured by elevator moving down ............0. 00000 e cece eee 74 es injured while riding on hod elevator... ............00 000 ccc ee eeee 74 ms injuries received from tipping of loaded elevator .................. 74 “injuries received from tipping of ash elevator... .................. 73 injured while stepping off elevator... ...............0.00-..0000 0) 73 7H injured from falling into grain elevator bucket.................... 74 i injuries received from operation of elevator descending, defective SLOMAN Sine da ettceya: siden Sak AE ek bea Seas bad OA nS AS a een 72 Elevator, boy killed while running elevator .. ............000 000 cece eu eee 72 : injured by trap door, no signal... ........ 2... 0c cece eee eee 72 EMBANKMENT: Fall:of stone f On 6.0 seieeks ous ee coqiaase ee neon aweia vie tie iv ees eee es 72 EXCAVATION, PERSONS FALLING INTO: Excavation, falling into, by licensee .. 0.0.00. 0. e cece eee eee es 76 ee fallanto: bY Childs 2. sede aihe es eae xa danstayg Data paaheeend anh yay y 76. falling into, of car injuring workman.....................00-.. 75 “ falling into, caught hold of by employee.................-...44-- 75 “ falling into, cave in of dirt over water main... a alana eaeeraa 75 S falling into, dug near walk... .... 0... eee 75 ae falling into, dug near railroad switch... ..............-....0-. 75 " falling into, dug near railroad track... .........0... 000s ee eee, 76 e fall of bridge constructed over in street. ..............-.....00. 75 ef fall of bridge constructed over in street. ....................00. 75 ee fall of flag stone of walk... 0.0... 0... c cee cee eens 76° 576 INDEX EXCAVATION, PERSONS FALLING INTO—Continued PAGE Excavation, falling into hole, car....... 202.0. - eee cece cece eee ene nees 75 a falling into hole when leaving premises, no warning............. 75 “ falling into when in path. ........ 0... cece cee eee eee ee ene 74 EXCAVATION, FALLING EMBANKMENT: Excavation, falling embankment............. 0c cece eee eee eet teens 77 4 falling embankment...............eee eee e eee eee tee e eee 76 me falling embankment............ 000. e cece cece nee ee tees 77 es cave in of trench. .......... 0... c cece eee ee ee eee ees Gagne ee 77 ee cave in of trenchsiacccsie ve deen daw ad eed saad eww bec Ow ase tenes 77 . cave-in.of trenchiss < MEDIO CK OF WOGO ad oscars av bisid.d Susi s paldaoace ae ween DE Me wld ead oak aR eA 106 st ME DOE fronts). a sksed he Wee eae de eeesdues sarocstih 2G PEN tell ated 104 “ “Prick through Chute ait ae cae eee cares ae eS 101 6 rick: fron SCAM Olduaguieas ei aiuiv scapes teleadee loner Meare wea tees 103 “ “brick from scaffold... 2.0.2.0... 000s cece eee saree sand ong aed aera by 103 (brick in building a casas een Ape ae ee ee id ee eee Bea de ders 103 eee 7S brick in: DUNGING 4 Pesach cy ala dasa caus see PANS eae auk se ete BS 103 eS brick in buildings .4.c.coctanceg ee tha Seoeeeds daa aie eed ange 105 “© Bueket; ‘loosened, cable: s <.0+ oce seus ny sse dred ed gare Nee pee eens 101 “ “ bucket, defective hook... 0.0.0... cette eee 102 “ “ bucket, steam shovel, adjusting rope. ..............00e0 cece eee ees 106. * chain of Cle Vator 0.0 .ee-seaia oa carn wels Vales de Feed wae ded ege mee alee 102 584 INDEX FALLS, FALLING OBJECTS—Continued PAGE Fall of coal from bing... 6.6 ccs cance ven e ng ds De na a eR 106 Se CAN GOVER WOE CHULE 25-4 c ed ndsd aceema stad i deheits ie sade 4 SN gd msndana le saree 104 BS MSAFE TEDISLer AN CAPS esd lng is ish ater k eo wide A Beha deme Bila e ed 104 Ht th Hag: DOES a vas ver wake sews wae eUoade ba Sia nals Beene So ROUR SS 106 et ane Ol PIS SB y's eines say's clones mi carne SEM anche as Wis Gee Mae Ae ese 103 “ “Yammer of machine... ........ 26.0. e ee eee gotten eee e teens 105 “head board of bed... 2.6... 6. ce eee eee eee es HN bieoee as a eee 106 “ “hoisting vessel, defective hook .. 1.0.0.0... 00 cece eee eee eee eens 102 “ “hook, hoisting tackle.......00.0 00. c cece eee eee ee 101 ““ “iron beam, improper signal. ......... 0.00. c cece eens 104 tS Tron DEAMISS sis xeueeuieanths ak ewan rs we Naeem nena omuretary peas 103 *S: Savon bolt: trom scaffold, .44 vaxweecsannde che seeded Rees Bp aw eeS wees 104 OS Grom pleCE aa aes jartias Hes Se se ganas oaeatana + aalaeet aes eRe RS Ae 101 arom flask cokes eo ae wag halve O lehaes ea deals ac woah aiedeawee 102 EPCS APONM Pla LOS ykine icra a creep CAa Mh Sea aausl Guach aa ele aae ea eora begin dae a daV needs 103 1 EVENT SLOPE Si laa nc seats lore Uae aeacece malate elagbea- GuaedH Ward lala aiulee geal beatae te 103 ea terial from “Wall ves, ¢ ahi. - box OF: COncretets wicing thon Law Paine wens Me wekeate gute cise oo aetes 113 “bridge in theater. ees 114 “casting from car. .............. BpaeVEN Rede iain ase Die ie cuales Sore eone ys 113 “cement through chute... 2... 02. cece cect e en eae 115 “chute between floors... 0.0... cece cece eee ee ee eens 115 POCO POCKEtS ah hs aig aks yh Beto Apt wiahint, oes Roe SEO a eel ata xuolr wens 114 Bs WORRICk: 451.5 e-a0-14 oes Ak ep terete Pate yds awa peer awsede avi new an 112 © derrick, defective leg... cece eee cence sa eee eee ebay ene se cemenwurs 113 “derrick, breaking of rod. ........... 0... ec eee eee eee eee Uuateeteaade 114 “derrick, boom not fastened... 00.0.0... cece ce eveeceeece ccc eeeeees 112 Certick Citing ice ese ge nie sbeecse tye Sear eg Re A hae A tes bd BERR Ooo 112 INDEX 587 FALLS, FALL OF STRUCTURES—Continued PAGE Fall, heavy material iecscs: ccs gee cs er ae gia en sige dew Dagaas eda auce oe 114 Heavy eblect:s 2h acs lease sscadsespunwnsanedlesdes seen ai cota eta 112 “hook, chain and block ............ 00. c ccc ccc cent een een ees 115 8 F AROUL MOAN io.sun: Toe = crac aye pee Sade ceessatg ae uc a Lal A eeuhegad Sue ele 115 “* iron beam being lifted .........0.0 0.000 n eee ene ee 113 sof arom BUCK pacina tuna y sates oe Sa Ae an aA ne ep eager eo 114 “iron column, breaking of boom line. .............0...0. 000. c eee eee 113 “ron slab being moulded... 1.2.2.0... cece tenets 112 “metal plate..............2.00- sidag haa cesar maMe La aan at Rat eee, ces 114 plank Hittin @Griver caus lead als Henk Bad ead aaeege nada aie 113 -platiorthy bMidge +226 S65244eoidd one echt oad dn eee eR SRO 114 “platform, timbers sawed off .. 2.2.02... 0c nes 112 *8- pulley from shatt's. .cavewnedseaw ean eaie genes yee eee com gay 113 “roof of mine, defective props... ....... 20... eect eee 116 “roof over sidewalk... 0.0... ccc cece cece ene entree ete ene neces 114 EPS SSE ALS tv ced cue aE sds as clus es She RE Tana en SO Eee A RG aS ea Cabs 114 “skids between car and platform... ..................... St Blais 113 SS) SPINE Se. Gare ad epee aGled WEAR Weed soma dheead Akad eae eee ek 112 “steel truss, defective hook... 0.0.0.0... 00.0 eee eee ee hue 113 PD ATES LG A ie Bad sade Fase ot ata ah ans soc sea hte ecg igtscr le ncaa 114 of telephone: pols ss .0e2 sure didi deue kaka se es eee nea ada ees oe hee eee 113 ff SOL APONEY. Wile: say's ow eae eas vailroad tie falling’. 3: ...ck ade ones vale ate one oni slele ote eget eledae ene 134 “falling slide at theater... 2.0.0.0... ccc cece eee ent ee nee eees 133 “steel truss, defective chain........ Iundieiny iit Re ogee ade egland aes see bes 133 HITS, FROM FLYING OBJECTS: Hits: belting secu agcgude ewes Meg egkastGhua@ate Soaked erable eam eeeaeds 136 “block of wood from machine. ............ 0... cece eee e eee eenee 137 eS cghip from 1Orges Meee hdc ane esa lhn es Ry aah exw ates sae taGea vee sad aes 137 “glass splinter, explosion................... rareBs RSs Bradner at deeb. ae ae 137 * glass bulb dropped: sisi a see see deed eae @aebawcie ce epee ee 137 oe Hammer head a: Giaiis senstoua) aca aii soaa suche ad aad hella sath ao dled 136 eran handle...) so4 dares panes whe Peedetes deen oa, bbe eed ea wees 137 Sd rals OF SURAT 4s gyiGis cierioe Hoag g eaten eraele vba Mau eee eos 138 “iron band, hit by train. ....... deer men certs a ha Mer amie ae eelobied vy tats asian anlar 136 © “knife-from: planers: 2 .isise+ aes waved sane aed ene eab asa snes 137 BOS oe DVB Ae eens tle Se ech a eh NSS ti gaa Wd a ea trpae era SMa ae daReCSAy 138 Hit by object from passing train... 0.00... cece eee eens 136 “by object thrown from wheel... 20... 2... eee eee eee 138 SS pulley urstingGs «isa.s ise tama Sk Ae ote c eee ees dig a Maint yarns Baa ees 136 “ ‘by rock from blasting... ................04. Py iggy ale tea akan 136 “by sliver from chisel ....... ila aisien il iat mae tea cle Lad sta 138 © py splinter from Grill oii .05 joa ee sc oes Awe bebe wise Qaeda yp ae 136 “ by steel from cutting rail... 2 eee nes 137 1S steel Sha VINE pase a ais eeG eh diane EY nein Bharata 137 © «, stone:from explosion; ys tse eouc ede ree cade stn eys Cees wa egs eae aes 136 ‘ . stone from, blasting: «+ sc0%. cad coves eda Ge pane easmiaeea Ree Sead dba 138 tf tie thrown by trait. ssocuinc-ar cus eae pp anode add wkd oe ae ee 137 594 INDEX HITS, FROM FLYING OBJECTS—Continued PAGE Hits: window brokete 4.26.2 ¢ancy seeks ea eee ec A A ee ee se 136 SP WANE LOCOM o:/esece ust sales qu bi aaeda ad planes Soba ee and Og RRR 137 HITS, BY MACHINERY: it, bucket of oistict: Sa 5G Renae, a nd ached pees oe dy bc SUES AW RNN ied So eons tae eS 138 BO CTAMNG cindy Ak es. aeh daa nes oe eae eee waade eae dale a pei s ae aula 138 “by steam shovel arm. . 2.0... cette ene e ees 138 8 DY taCkl eo ie We cactecs saabnc Mopeecaal Ste Me sie Mola, & ature ls acid ana ame aed 138 HITS, BY STREET CARS AND STEAM CARS: Hit. by brace Cat s.: 9 0s ieasceays eager ge reggae een yeas Rie eeaed 139 © “bycars Of Contra ctorey: os nw evivesasveen scare teaser dewe aoe wee 139 “ears in collision... 0.0.0.0... eee eee ee eee By a ewe pa Bees BIN ee 139 ** locomotive at crossing io ec ssc.ee dd ose cate see tikeeed sce de eeaeeseds 139 “py car while playing in street ...... 0.0... cece eee eee 139 "py train while repairing bridge.............. 0.2 cee cece eens 139 HITS, BY VEHICLES: Hit: by automobiles cece dw es cee ee eA ew Boke sew hau ei gaee ne Moe arses 139 "DY Cart: OM SLCC sega lect ane he Se toe eed Re Ge SE eae bin ace RR eH, les 139 “py vehicle while waiting for car... ........ 0.022 c cee eee eee ee 139 HITS, MISCELLANEOUS: Hit by barrel on cables wcicecs cde esd estes neha wees eee cree peer e 140 “by bridge: draw sided ex besa say ees essen 4 dooyoo ose ite eden ees 140 Ss ey WU Ck Ste. eead ooo cceeke ess Ye ated Nora pW enna et ak aa are ade deia ed UA. 140 “while boarding car. 2.2.2... eect eees 140 ©. By coal intchute sn. paises ceded sea cad pede Gogals ceedu wales balances 140 “by draft of sugar swinging .. 0.6... eee cece ene eens 140 “by elevator in shaft. ..................0.. si Sa RAE MR Aten dines Age 141 “by fellow-servant driving UTE ienA dale alee ies dl haoaty cadet eel wget S hes 140 & “by Katch-Comb:....a0 FUNDING AWAY s.0.aisn cisco oe ee wee Rowe ergs Sae Sean Mer eenes awe 143 “running away, unattended in street... ...........0..00.. 20000 e eee ee 143 “punning away, throwing driver... 2.0.0... 0... ccc eee eee 144 “running away, frightened by stone pile.. ............ 0.0.00 c eee ee eee 144 Fomine: Wi highways sauce ed gee nals a av auis dmale piel ala hah ls ecee aang canes 144 “running into obstruction at night. ©0000... eee eee 144 shying at noiserof Cath ceo gad ee bee edaed ee dew ales eae geet eee 142 “« springing, throwing passenger. . 1... 2... 06... cee eee eee eee 143 “struck by saddle horse in street... 0.0... 0.00 c cece e eee eee eeene 142 “team running, frightened by boxes falling... ...........0ceeeeeuues 142 INJURY: Injury causing delirium tremens... ................0 000000 eae wegay 144 596 INDEX INSPECTION: PAGE Fall while inspecting mill.... 0.0.00... 0. cee eee eee ee rR 144 INSURANCE: Negligence in performing contract ..........cc cece cece ee eee cette ete eee 144 LANDLORD AND TENANT: DPA COVEN 5¢ deiusd-s tates ech aulee wae Hea a siels aie gE Hoes Goce ga INN Lakes aioe 145 Door shutting, breaking glass. 2.1... 2... eee cece eee eee eee nen 145 Dumb ‘walter fallen. icaaiwndad sapnaes tad eeesey aie eaemaetmaretea tee 145 Falling on stairway unlighted rig Bh ei ant tia dba Moran hte eid a ein eae 146 Fall over banister... ......... Sty Wile Seay Ea Retiew eR be ey ere Eee ea ees 146 ‘* from teetering of board. ........... 0.0.0 c cece cece ence ene 146 over Tubbish am yan <3 5 oss aw ee dee plldelay adie dade dae Aeweka s . 145 Ob balcony, railings 05 aicac wile eee eM be A ee anh AWA Was edited’ 145 “ of grating over coal hole............ sal yaani douche nea daw Seana 145 e hallway unlightéd oc c0c0 esouscendaea sg bea Vee pa ee eagu ek aces de Hees 145 “hallway, slipping on floor............ je gears pile EpRheaeeeee wane eal 146 “hand rail breaking..................- lala ate ana Suey ay stg ted nes iam tesa 145 AO Jey StalTway viiss gdhev aie de detae xe ee we es eee es Macensrdahe Bata loea ee 145 8° ‘sewer; fall into’ soca as Wiehe yada shee @Ste ghecete we anda/edun bdo wahoaehee 145 “ stairway, slipping On... .....-... cece ccc cece cece eee ee teen eens 145 “ veranda rail breaking .. 2.0.2.2... 0c ccc cece cece eee e eee reece een nees 146 LADDER: Ladder bend Gsei.24 ede melee ween eveee se Mea rete aS aa ke ee ioe ee Law 147 “breaking; defective. . oc svessse ay wa atuti us dank seo évea ove se naeab ane 147 «breaking, imperfect material... 2.2.2... e cece 147 Oe | Wpregkin gs sac0seca canned anpsaarsacussn Scriead soa ay ae tale-sk den a weee te abe ‘147 BSS PAM OR ec. ciaer aie sa natant Res taieictn esahuat dneqele Gad abiita-d ieee eae ak ooicthe hat eers 146 SO fall Ob soci wish Seats Pe ee ee eee ee ere 146 SO fallvot 2 cacao ta awmiendenn BS aaa Ute aniey ie RD daa ohana cee te Oe 147 “fall and slipping of ladder. ...........0.000. 00 pee cece cece ee ce cee 146 “fall from, struck by car... 0.0.6... eee cece eee eeeae 147 “fall from, turning of rung.... 2.2.0... eee eee een e ees 146 «pushed, causing fall... 0.0... cece cece cee e es 147 “fall from tree, defective ladder... 2.2.0.0... ccc cece eeccccceccceeee 146 « step-ladder, fall from... ....... 00... e eee eee, 148 “« step-ladder, painter falling from. .................. dogg tb tiaia he MS ot ne 146 «“ warped and tipping .......... 0.06. cece cece cece eee enn eeee 147 INDEX 597 LIABILITY: PAGE Liability of railroad company .......ccceececescce cece tees eee eneeeeees 148 LICENSEE: Licensee seeking employment .. 1.0.0... 0. ce cece cence eee e nent tence eens 148 “falling into excavation. .........0 000. c eee e cece eee eees 148 BA abt Doayy bens ila cts ch alana sels ead teat ee Uastd tes ene aha anne dat eset 148 “stepping into hole... .......... aa salir arate iG AA a VRS eA MUSA teed 5k 148 LOAD: - Load, fall of bale of hays sco e536 ode eee eeh cess noises eh ee oye te bse 148 Load, fall. of from truck’: 3s i ideo ee vee eee ald sais hE TOL ERG IRE e oe 148 LOOKING: Failure to look when on track... 0.6.62... cece cece eee eee reece ee etnies “148 MACHINERY, BREAKING OF: Machinery, belt breaking, of machine....................4. re ee eee 149 is bursting of pulley... 00.0.0... 00 0c cece cece cence ence teeta 149 © bursting of pulley, excessive speed... 0.2.2... 0... c cee eee eee 149 re breaking of glass polisher ............. 0.000 c cee eects 149 “ breaking Of bebe geceeoaw eel cidea Ch ee Be ee a 149 ee breaking of rope.......... ale Ag TAk See ates aan tet arc th eee nt 149 cleat pulled from machine. .............. 0.02 cece eee * 149 " fall ‘of pulley se 2c... dave es ewacdedesdedaes hie eoea Reagan dees e 149 MACHINERY, CHILDREN INJURED BY: Machinery, hand cut off, machine out of repair. .................0....0000. 150 i. hand caught in. 2.0... ee eee ee cGahoeihd waaay ayienad 149 = dangerous, Labor Law.. ............. Heh Ate Pikeaeen wees 149 MACHINERY, CAUGHT IN: Machinery, arm caught... 2.2.0.0... 062s 150 ss arm caught in shaft .........0.. 0000.0 eee eee eee 153 o clothing alight Ite. sincere yvade ewes an Yaw HAY es Cae dare aoe as 153 Me clothing caught its. ss. sae es9 ss dos see e ees wey eee ews che eee 153 a fingers caught in roller. .............00.0 0000: c cece eee eee eee 153 e caught in paper machine............. Pe ree ere 153 s caught in sausage machine ...........0...0.0 0... cece cece e ees 151 se caught in putty machine... ......... 00... eee eee eee 152 a hair caught is s:sece odeaw ees ses pales ie ew Ss Bae ee Nee add 151 598 INDEX MACHINERY, CAUGHT IN—Continued PAGE Machinery, hair Caughts a2 ss: actove ed oa BOS ERS RSE Ged he eee 151 hand caught in roller... . 2.0.6... eee eee cee ee nes 150 re hand caught in planer ...... 0.2002 o eee eee 153 = hand caught in knitting mill...........0..0. 200. e cee eee eee 153 sy hand caught in rollers. ........0-. 2000s cece eee eee eee 153 - hand caught rolling rubber... .............. wiptert eres tee ees 150 hand caught rolling rubber... 2... 262... 0 00s eee eee 152 "7 hand caught in paper machine.. .............0 eee eee eee eee 150 “ hand caught in paper machine. . .......-... se ssee eens eeee o... 151 hand caught leaning over machine... ............. 000 cece eee eee 151 . hand caught in traveling crane... 1.2.0.0... 0c eee eee eee 151 a hand caught in stamping press.......... Ada ahaa eae Re Rea 151 “ hand caught, knives of planer... .........0...0 00000 c cece eee eee 152 Le hand caught, knives of planer... ....0...0...00 00200 c eee ee eee 152 s hand caught in rollers. 0.2.0... 0000 c cece eee eee 152 ef hand caught in rollers. 2.2.2... 0 0c 152 e hand caught in cogs of machine. .............0....00..00.0000 153 injured on working table. ...............0.0 0000022 eee eee 152 a hand caught in machine... 1.2.2.0... ee eee 151 at hand caught in machine starting... ...........0000..00000000-. 153 ee hand caught by cable... 2.2.60 0 6 eee eee 150 a foot crushed, steam crane. .. 2.0.00. .0 2c eee cece Pe cen 151 “ foot slipping, caught in belt ....-..........0.0............. Nuke AO Caught Machine: 10 occaked kee ers dse She hea eyeeeuaees Waeee aA 150 a caught in machine... 2.2... eee 153 . caught in shaft. ............. saps ia igen we euareaemen an ht 150 as CAUCHO SHALE a sa wne caecum yes kees i eaetbliee sane enw aisle 150 a Calghtan shaltirne peasues bate eee war emcee as Se oe Secs 152 ® caught in shalt seven va ees VR REM oe w Soap eak eee ed pants 152 m caught in cog wheels... 2.0.20... cece cece eee 151 caught in belting. San ah Soe ae Sac e a Ge ie ata GNA ae ce due ted 151 a Caulebtiin belting. sca ee ef Waa ees ah beacon seeeaatawns 152 " caught in pumping rod..... Sake resin ae ach ceine Petes een aoa Rs 154 ‘ thumb: caught... 2. hak ieentecala spe daten goa kee aeee ks 153 + thumb: cut-off. .icsdacor dane tieee Weis bernevewiedeseaeees 151 MACHINERY, INJURIES RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE OF CO- EMPLOYEES: Machinery, dropping iron rod... 1.2.0... 0... c eee e eee eee nee ees 154 “ fall of bucket of steam shovel......... 0.000.000. cece ce eee eae 154 INDEX 599 MACHINERY, INJURIES RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE OF CO- EMPLOYEES—Continued PAGE Machinery, hand caught in press. .......0 6.0.0.0 eee cece cect eee ee 154 ns jerking of belt.............. Se Gas Wr Sea eae a va (ges ein ea aay 154 us machine imperfectly tempered... .......2..0. 000.00 c cece eee 154 i windlass block. . 1.1.2.0... 0s cece cence eee een aee tigate 154 “+ repairing machine. . 1.2.0.0... 0c eee eect e eee ... 154 MACHINERY, DEFECTIVE: Machinery, band saw defective. ........00 600000 cece cece cece e eee eee 154 is Deltuderectives si.care again ew eie ee oe eee ee eras as 155 ss clamping connection defective ............0 0.0.0 cece eee eee 155 us cutting pads out cf repair... 0.2... eee 155 ee ladder warped... 1.2... 02. ccc cece eee eee cee eee e eee eee 155 “ land roller jas) Guede cele cenqee bestia gin tiaaw a iaua eee 155 ie machine defective... 00.0.6... ccc cece nee eee eee nes 155 ae machine defectives . . vs ay.- sade eee eruads yy S28 we coke wdalee wae 155 4 pulley loos@%s 002s o4n eu eee eed eases Geadan ade neem eulwnes 155 = pulley bearings defective... 0.0.0.0... 00... cee eee 154 a Saw boardsin eins ele tabiahs dada each ed aed oe aoe SEA Seas 155 - setting Up Machine... c cscussencsu ve ged Ove aegvawduwes daa dees 155 ne table-of cutter: 4224 ence ecaieee Shae es ee axa eew adele cadens 155 e tripper car of belts. sssexseyawis chinese rye pew eek ee aiee ees 156 MACHINERY, FALLING INTO: Machinery, hair in fly wheel. 2.2.0.0... cent e eee eee 157 u falling from platform... 2.0.0.0... 0. 156 mt falling onto knives ............. 02.0.0 c ce cece eee eee 157 u fallsonsslippery N6Ors::: s2cn,snes eevee ee toe deweet te deayae sa ae 157 if fall on slippery floor... 2... 22.25.6264. 004e3s ceed ete cseceaaeses 157 “ ladder pushed -:gcc5-o4 sete c et aie s aces Mae ake agent aaa eRe aes 157 " PUL arm Mays ey Boreas ad eu aie open Sela alone secs 156 hand im Machine. . oso. sacked eatdagteaeeoercgoqanaer euaaee 156 a falling in machmnery:....2 ss vuogaytnugen sow ar ar anny wath wa eeees 156 . falling in machinery.............. Sik Weewede Pers vereuie sates 156 catching arnt x oi < siege eas i ene Gee ey eed wae ene es 156 o falling INtOl eo 05.5 BAe ayes Bs SAGE ea LE a 156 f thrown. of Belti.cccssesencuans gd ance pn iaG Menace say eeensannes 156 if thrown on shaft). j.dscan.bon gee ow Sega ean aaewen 157 . tripping on floor ...................0005 seu ee ees 157 600 INDEX MACHINERY, HIT BY OBJECTS THROWN FROM: PAGE Hit by object thrown from............. 0.20 c cece eee een tees 157 “© objects thrown from. .......... 0.2 cece eee eee een e tte eees 158 Blotk Of wW00d 24s ceo hoes eR eee ee Ee a eds HG Saas Ge el 158 Hit by belts. gcse pep Mie wb ta he Cade RE Ree BRN MO Se Oe 158 ~ by chip from forge ........0. 0.00 c cece tee eee 158 fe by GFank handle wads caceciaas eae genes bnee deg wiles Gee eea Nees ae ges 158 “ by knife from planer. 2.0.0.0... 0.00.0 oo tegtel ait 158 “ by load from trolley. ................00 2000s SuhieGiig Sage en eee SS 158 MACHINERY, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT: Machinery, defective in instructions... 22.0.0... eee eee eee 158 MACHINERY, SUDDEN STARTING OF: Sudden starting of while being repaired............-.-.- 20 ee eee eee eee 158 " " ‘“‘ while being repaired.............. Moduda aren psicton wea ees 159 i sf ‘“‘ while being repaired... 2.20... 0... c cee eee eee 159 Hall from (addetsis.ceddenae expen a gis eee ORR ee Aas Si an alee eS 158 Gas: CNOINGs 2. isi Sede sa ae ease eyed wea hundels GA Maa eR Sea eee PHT GS 159 Hand cauehty cs gwtena evr oo Gee he oe oe ae ea RON USSG Re eens ae 158 Mototnv Gite Why Maids Ghee Mae MEAS e tea eM ne os ann at Grea Men 164 « “dynamite Stored iy. s.s6 execs vee wediewe de Seas caries woes tees 164 fall-of tree limbs) oo Fs a eee eee eee ee De Sue aN ea 164 ee Grade Changed jiu ciea dee daca a hadge Genel ee 76 cee RaeR SG 164 Ef pOleMINekhans oats ean Mae waa an ae uae are Fhel aa eceal ae hick bod 164 a etivind BE AH Tie Ges shank a Since deensad naw tag Deeiea kee Bees 163 “obstructions in. .......... oe i ce Se RS Sion m elata Dat aesliiaanehausl wee ye G 163 “sidewalk defective ....c0csvsctesaescssswevsreienncmengantanay reads 164 *- ‘sidewalk, loosesstone: . oc a s44evediens eye hk sede Woes Reon eRe 163 sidewalk; icé and Snow s...22s:seieveat ered bee abe eee MiGleei see Cea 163 HE NOE ANsae vs ae soa OE hee ee ees eee ea came eee 163 \ swater, damages from: ss. .ciessccecusaueoebe ees Sewer area eee ee REA es 163 “ owater, closing S@WEP. . 05.5 Mie ec ei database ee Renan ed TH EF 164 O° “WALeY OVERLOW & «since bdidclnaG barbus ata wamacds dod alee Evelenbaes Deas oes 164 water: broken hydrants. cscs wi Paes Seda Gwe pane Salem sudden icon 164 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS: Alterations of ..............0.0004 SAN Ma acne A aati wade krer eines ae EPH RARE 165 ORDERS: Failure:to obey; collision ss... 4¢s 65 04 eisee ye ey 699 5a 'S0ES ONES HEE e SEER LES 165 OVERFLOW OF SURFACE WATER: Raising street; grades .cicans may av Poada cass Gases ema Re eee Wea wae es 165 PASSENGERS ALIGHTING FROM CAR INJURED BY CAR ON ADJOINING TRACK: Car in opposite direction .. 0.0.6... eect eee enn e nets 165 Car on. adjoining track: ego: .canrsese ek as SYA Sa Rees eae ane eae oles 165 Has - braChcn antes ensks Wa ae oes paepa ie 2 Gece ern aes Sk tee ee 166 fete MD OSE ea er cen ae Gr es cnah A gunernn Uti iirc. aratdntcac Sed en Ra 166 oe Oe Bi UTA sss Saad ick aa Aart bt A cle Bees Rava tere Beh eae 166 me SS ARC wi ida tins filets Ghee ee AY ae Naas Mca he ees 166 Fall on snow pile ......... 0.00 cece ence e eee te sete teenees 165 PASSENGERS, INJURED WHILE ATTEMPTING TO ALIGHT: Catching foot in fender. .... 2.6... e nn ees 168 Conductor withdrawing support... . 0.0.0.0... ccc eee ae 167 INDEX 603 PASSENGERS, INJURED WHILE ATTEMPTING TO ALIGHT—Cont. PAGE Car Starting ics) cnc ota htsataw aoa e galae es Ae ea Carns SAM goed Goa NS 166 “t BPD ose satel SE knee ahha Washed a Maton ac TO wade No sale Ae Rei nach antatn ane deat Gaunt 168 ae en, legs Pade ac Niece ele iany se ta tN) gtees iad Dae Rate kn hoe eee 168 Slippery platform. .......... ich ore at hecciead rtertarkcek sh eal ae Sa 167 Stepping in hole... 2... ee eee teen eee teteneenees 167 " BY A ARG ucla) cela Nicaea arta Wanted Sele eh eiilihs des Poe Re asia 167 nf NOTES i ck a Uae tda tating ig loth wid sinna macau, SNS oF Paes LENS 169 AL coer nn rae Ca acti haute Ona valine Ai aa tada Weasel bhe nos arena eden eterna « 167 Sudden starting cf car....................... aie eh aay bal ola SonVenccty outer dae 169 C Oe Ee arate eA BR aa al ee ceca Duala hi Rte ree BS aaah aah gh eae, 169 aS a CRE gar oa Sa ead aie esata Sand Acne Ricca tan ee tS 5 dhe a ng eRe aan 169 By DOES tO Sete corte dechode eae aii Sagem Ree gs ai ee eas se ae aS ae 169 Stepping from car................. shal ae ia aia i cats teas as ead Tabane Sed a 166 Jumping from car... ............. Ee ee ee eee eee 167 JUMpiNg from CAT a nia wesiG wis Bee Ga ola gees es Phe Ge ed goal Pameiaeaty 168 Thrown by sudden starting ............. 0.00. c eee ccc neees 166 ‘. *SUCAED -StATUNE 3 .chork cue bee de dpe tad ea eeae gina moreeled 166 a © -SUAGEN Starting scat eed Gta Gece ges wae ame hh eg dade Say gga des 167 . “ sudden starting ............... Ee en er ee eee ee ee 167 « § ssudden -StATUMe: ieiaresuceiy cate sv Weeleapenieda Wes keacb aua bie Gana ainda 168 © sudden ‘starting®’ so. co eo acagecaae Ss ccbledes nde sue pelt ae en vi... 168 u -igGdden Starline. siiis sete sk ay age eed eabeaeate Psa boot ken abe 168 e sudden starting . occ... ga oe cae bee ee eevee bes fraecen 168 me SUAdEN Stare ‘Saarsanto4 ea hes Anema babe Bowe ak ene s Seems ieee ‘169 - HO sudden sstartinercd.. ayes binuce sie Saas de eenteut sae v... 169 “ © pudden starting 2 s.sce a5 ob ectasagrens te ee ing plea o Ca ann ». 169 tt “© SUDGEM StATING 632.4. Anews sheep d Gee eae eae bed teeenen need 169 eS © sudden Starting cas ccacea ted esnese ving ee eae deans ecuns “sii itea 169 ee Sdden Starnes’ csi a carve weaned oe bose eee ale meee s 167 “Sudden Starling «esc. byes an vende Seatead eat way hea es 169 PASSENGERS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO BOARD: Car-approaching: 22s eisesendensceads oveed ad ieWendeayeaees eed eieee sos 170 Dragged Dy Gat’. us deities quote ieee ieueu seers ds eee sae 10 Wall starting ol. Caro. ned ptcuaeteah ai dale ae Se eae Seca teak 170 “a ES OR CAT eh eee aly 4 tens eke sane Gah Ga eaten eae amet 170 “ fC OF CAT: isch Wid due gales a odes date Koa eR eae inde ox Caan 171 a a Gh CAT dt eaoeien se ad har ke ar ee ee weber aati ae wie: 171 604 INDEX PASSENGERS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO BOARD—Continued PAGE Foot caught, platform. .....06 05 2 ack See Powe Ske ee eee Ee ee 171 Starting of car...... es caavl-a tale kev ded ble bavh Reales BAN Pe eee 171 Knocked from running board... ..........0 0020 cece eee teens 170 Pushed seis erect saat cre weaeeteaa a eles ance MA Ba ai RN dee 28 Peco wR ue eee 170 Slipping; platforms. s atin citaawh aes outta le aaees deat spas mane ea bette a we ee oa toh alae MES an . 217 “ rotten.... Board walkiscig:éaiccaace sing ew ders age aoe Mig Es GR Oe EaEs a Gar beNy OHee Aes Bridge over, falling...................0000- eee iishatecehen Bridge over, falling . Cellar way near walk... 0... tee teeta teens GOal NOLEN andar te. wi-lmdeiaa oak engi cept Neam eswen Madea pem Eaaieae hs NOLEN: « Jacu'd eis ees oes eat ae Sav ee eras an ees ¥ eweteea sts enesa sree Neue 6 NOLO did ore ccusstagene eee TehaG ev he AYR a ee aeRO EE @HEH wR Asa HS NONE AB ses seid caib ces ees dacs Sobnqy ae are Seria EMD esia’s aA Seeks aencaaAenGes Gals platase yan cee Oe NOMEN Laces eter a ates nine e weed on om AoE he dace oumetinsaaieanley ISU Bee ar tg eat n ye geen exe ect nth ey area Beaten aterm ea caret Tt Splitting OF Oar As yaw ictve lesen ghuanaiaicxcaaredayorsened Seeard vavu eae OE dlendieeicoicadadeyessncaee . 214 OL ener Pk Sosa Sones esas ata SLUM) Sree ae cle aa fae Meso Sas es STO at ab MRE FYING UPs isda coveaear ao gadeeeesenanee wnebes . 223 617 PAGE . 215 215 215 212 212 213 212 216 216 216 216 216 216 217 218 217 218 221 220 221 222 222 218 218: 618 INDEX SIDEWALK—Continued PAGE Cross walle tion Sinec sei odie aetienat Me ole LG ee aeaiedte eat Le Defectiverwalles fo 5 sligat navi ae Goeeoweeks dhaaveha resin asaya eeeeeeee elt ue BWV BL GS Ja 2 ecnireasedana enn otha algal guaran acctanne Av pore inte bia Oe aceon aS e WAC irias thy oe pet ine lean caw es hehe cain sete aes: Seats Mua aan geal WOON “ Wal Kay Ses. ti caGa thas DAD Rad eae A ALAR ODEN ae eee we. eee Wall. gs: aa de cet Goda haloes ay eee aaeelaawahneaie Boo . Wal iiiasiy ane Re een ae loa SE dale ghee eee MAN eae deg ae cee foe Toe prasiot iro Acasa cated ania ig bic Maton cous nan acme ue aD Fallon Walk: gore. css efeces ye sina x Soe Bake ea A ice ee eS es Bee ye ee ences 219 Flagging projecting .. 2.00.20... ec cee teen tee ee ee 222 c PLO]OCHNG 555, Susie wie ba a whi ena Pale a ee eee hen aa 220 19 PIOJCCHNG: 45 cote cade au ewe ered ap ad Gade SOde REM Es Seed gene ed > “MEO \SCHING access sell eta ey de tenker seed eens Boson y hited oo ayers awed seaee bared teusav yauwen vote Le Poorly lighted): 2.j3sc9 eva ougioii a ue in ha a's.n Ga Re SR pg w wees Mover es Poorly lighted. ........@ 0. ..0..00...00000.... idiot aA SIpperyiy savas kesh gular ew dawkeawpaes oe re evince anes .. 229 .. 228 s» 229 . 227 Slippery i6 Mawes as Sakae SIPPING OM vaseline any) qeods. me Sa meamays wee gehen eral aeons Slipping on. ...............002.. ‘Tripplnid ON: sigs Ae re ean gee eo eek Re ese ks ’ TMPPING ON Miss 3 pay dy Ge we eee dew eed Tesi Mines om heady Aieweeseneaeca Tripping ON: na 403s es Sew yee see eae eA eas niin aah 4 ‘Umpuarded c.x:5:65 ics y cise Cae eae Ga ek ex a ngingeReben ates Skew anda Unlightéd ise aged s eater oeee Maa Roitay 2s PAGE 225 225 225 226 225 226 226 226 226 . 226 226 227 227 229 228 227 227 229 . 228 228. . 228 227 228 .. 229 . 228 227 INDEX STAIRWAY—Continued Gnlightied se. 404) .acwe Ai sy ye'g save eeietvie's Shien wales wee are Mans Coe ed bakes Uli ted acaysgc asso AEF eRe eis Bae nie ses BAERS SGATS BALD Pe Unlighted 222 yat Gi: dy ane go eddg tiie Modal da teehee wee aad Unlighted 004.459 cue9 sek eadae Gage eeige deena ae SNA ABA Se RS eas STEAM: Escaping . Fife stats Reaaacnse se tases sen daeia has, AGasAae aAseeeae oe: Breakin tor pipgsivor foeees eee eck i aa cae woe os eee en eee Valve; blow: OUts ag cayssewcusen cues av ay ce eere be ye Neen d Sea EE eee Be sults STOR Pall of merchandise: 36> ccc ounce ities aye y aides Wedd eae Sadie daca, WARS dara ead STREET ANmINGsUpPPOFt 5:05 Rice Acie Cay aR On Halelha EA nate Daler ee: Lie ode Gls alas AWhINg SUPPOFt «eos .6 eee dees sees cee eee HEN eee aaa Sates owe FernE Bridwe plank: «.. gency g 22 ea-os au ieee Sate ee eee eas REAR GAs Cellar way in. . a te Nac A hucTobit scat thle Trncenseaccncta antec Ah ecALAa A . 232 Embankment unguarded . Fall: ofsstone: ede y aos ede eu sae oho eee oe ea die eee Ae at Wall from skid's sa cujo% 2.0 des Seq dds ae So hee cae Se ce a hes Hd Dk bun ase . 230 Excavation in. . FEXCAVAtlOM IM aussie eo dsa ated ad Swale Aaa ARS OH Chae en Bee bee aes TGG: Sn SNOW UT +: aiatae eacenae eae onlag Xe aw oe em gas SS ceobe ee . 230 TGé ANd SNOW AN 2-43 o1 anes Sache hee NWS AMOS EGR Ua Ree Tice CaaS NOW MINS ene oats aera ahr taie Sreeme lend oN ct ever ea Many Manholeropens: s/si3 ectes oa ves ete seeker xe in case ph ek HSE eas eS ea . 231 . 231 Manhole, stumbling over Manhole, unguarded... . Manholesiy parks ir s- ici toccu tan wey ab atopath A on a ile wile eamagmed ene be nnd . 232 Mound of earth in... ................ Obstriletionsin orossing! traGky ie ics eesda dsaeeeere eres xedeee ee ae geaey Gas eee Loo & erossing trackecee esses cade dees Geadier mse digy scewes eee reaees 2BQ 624 INDEX STREET RAILROAD, COLLISION BETWEEN CARS, ETC.—Continued PAGE Vehicle, crossing track at night... 200.0... c eee cece eee eee eee 288 . 235 .. 240 .. 238 . 239 240 “on track. . “on track. . Wagon near track . . “on track. ... on tratkis oo oon as dee aber ep $2 Sh dh ee 4 eae ee ee Dee eS STREET RAILROAD, CHILDREN HIT BY CAR: Crossing tra¢kis vy so euce ed aaceueals oh esas Sind de one Seow cape aaddeon aes 240 Of etree deceit le Sana ae eeicen tet octetonlow tara ced ous lat tae Son ee ocean yy rea OP. | APACE 2.46 wis Sade, aan eal uti MW ein edie og Wi eeea alse seluauelyt Wai OAL SO rack ow ce Soe oo lc abe ed BAe ee ae hr See ae eee a Pec ee Haseee 42 BEPC TUN 105 adn Ogos Gas S ua sacar Matduieanaugraae mE Demanas, ge abmmactea, MeL BE? OStPCC bin aa olson aan dhe Shen, AAAS DAA Re SA eORe BoWaT eas aee sec CAL OGPOCL ih acabk oo Pouedadee, Cocke aoe eae eee ad eee oe dams oh tenes Dal SUPCC Li aa guuss 25 Gauls ASR MOGs sey VEER AY LE ad eua ewes eaves ZL Me SaipCe RGN S Guta coco CNG lame Lanse Skat lhe At 2 cee BE SBUTEED hte ee cases eanence cern. heya oe ed Sone Ce ee Les Sees len es os ok AD iti yiCatnse Ave cin hut aatin tat se cee ee acd laens ame anne Anam ra kd e AS Playing: in street ec) pss Poa Rx atealetuae need ad seadsens: gaasweds gaaeen BAL EE AO StRECis oe 4-43 ns Beha ab He Seek Me ESR eee Rg cea Ss Gaye DEL pie ata) on uae perce a aiieea dade ae wc batataea imide Seal Running in front of car... .. 0.00. cece ce cece cece eeceecceeeeceeeccceeee, 241 DUEet CPOSSING sua, 30's gucci ous peaeee See eye wee A eters Soe ab ear ae, 242 Streetscrossin gi waa vieey ela do Geena sodas Sr aedtsloue Rok eee anne ee BaD Rum-over, no fender + os-es«s ss5a ceanee nese teeeee Uadkee py eree maw geenenne 240 Run over, no signal or lessening of speed. ................................ 241 STREET RAILROAD, DERAILMENT OF CAR: Brealing of Casting. a. 343e ewes wim awh ey diye SS cd Dawanden capes wend 943 Defective, guards s,s. ccgusk yuh 2s PAI ae pees DO deeb ee aeree dis held an ong DAD TPT CURE IR ORD, Ga cis 32 a Sissy lamin aac serpintenn Peace oe A Arne no ES Horse shoe in track... 2 2... coe e cece cet ee cece esse cee, DAR Injuring pedestrian on walk... 622.662. ee ee. 242 Ronnie 16 dite. 6 ai02spsewn inne as evans si esaeusandoaladys evescsai aa BAB Switch détectivesc saws nw vewees pris ogee caueheyyda ashen yeep pea declaw ee 243 . STREET RAILROAD, INJURY TO EMPLOYEES: Burned by steam.... -.........0....... Ee Car plow catching rail.... 2.20.2... INDEX 625 STREET RAILROAD, INJURY TO EMPLOYEES—Continued PAGE Car starting, no signal... 60.66.00 c ccc ee cect eben ee aes. 244 Collision with roller... 2.00.00 0002 eee eee ee essences. 244 Coupling tars: 3 tj eke vag cen Te wien nae eaneeeta Laser eens 2 Coupling: Cars: sc. oon aang on atone 2h oa Seay ns ey RE ead Yeawen sa nyecees DAA Crushed.in: car bart esac nyide eeeekg rakes p22 Tk eats 4d atacameeueaseeae DAA Derailment at end of line... 0.2... cece ee eee 248 BleQanea: min sen. hero is ea eee einen a eds Wan actancowidane in Gee Hall int@- pit steed aisaees Paes va byl aa WN Ga Wate dae wanna Ree dame mugen ede SOF Trolley’ POLE... ga napacae eda Gener Shae Page eirs GE each weep esasiae 243 ‘Saver iobstructiOns :,— cia diay, mewehioanckdea vaiea ni awen geeieen acaw een eee 248 Obstruction ontrack... nice vou se gaa an eegbees Woe d bee da dee Uedawaagen oe DAA SHIP E Cares ase kh ees ees kscenda ee ey eae plus eAlnwe naw ene DES Repairing cars . . . scdidyy eae DOUala ey bind See RUA OAR Te HDG Rade Gardenedas 24D Stumbling over box. i... 22. eee ea be sewed ak wees Wetnecusanvnving ses BAB Switch installer ..uc<¢ccanaxeagdcewnes vaweesvews wacdbigs gaveaeey yegeesay BAD Dwitchisweeper: cutee scat Sd wea gr gees eeReRS. Aber seemed see DED Track repaireriscc! yor ceaveiy ne Saawies sane s digae Seeegeaeieoedaens D4A POPAINET eg es Se Vee eae yO Hep dced GUT Lp edo eae DAD et MOPAINCMasiacs pcinid eineshtsha veka cng ecu nal Ra iG he adeeb MARA Cain aint an oetaar D4 Thrown: by jerk of ar acc occ2 ages de anus un) seceded ny enatuneeusea Bios ee 244 STREET RAILROAD, PASSENGER ALIGHTING HIT BY CAR ON AD- JOINING TRACK: Crossing adjoining track. 0... 0.0... eee eee ee ee eee. 246 es uw track. ee ee ee ee eee eee a et braChes gs eee tacuadacnsy Gt eee oe wee a ey wae we enaaanst 246 i CE AGK osc aed Os ay a RANG POA Dad edema noms de aeawwe 246 Passing behind, ¢ar. «1.005.004 ancheeeese pond oa bee deewa Uwe oa yoaetees BAS CAD, iaiciscd Bae uie aataas HAee Ya anges hau dewey we eee al yee S245 CAD. ovullerdere vee in kes pais ee de wee Se ees See oe wes ¥ eee 246 5 | CON. esau nee es gadis dewane dead eves Wl aeMewaulen sd Gombe vies. 246 STREET RAILROAD, PASSENGERS INJURED ON CARS: Caught between cars... 20... 20.00. e cc cc ccc eee eee es., 247 Catching foot in mat. .... 00.0. cc eect cece eee. 247 Fall between car and platform... 0... 0 eee eee. 247 OP WINdOWS 4.c6: 92 ogedeotd aes So ana AP ee eee ag as B46 OF SLONE: be ooaa se deetene iad au eames A eee weep AT Fire ON GaF ga seeuaweietesis ue eeha dye ew er een gid pew ahd Wale da ees 247 Hand crushed. . . AGN Sete Lao Naar Sap Ra Na Re ear AR te eR Ee G ye cay TOR $e 626 INDEX STREET RAILROAD, PASSENGERS INJURED ON CARS—Continued PAGE Hit: by Bird er cv: ce hate sad ue er eda guedshgl SUG RO Seen ob eeey ee me EE Hit: Dy Dole iiey scsi 24 see ev A Pe ee RNAG REED Aawe Oe Ba BAe oeeE Rene ee LAF Riding over bridge. .. 20.00.00. cc scce ecco s ese ve db eeeany dee tn veer cece 248 Startitio of @ar os 5.ck sug yee da dd eae gatas Mek sawn eR RS Grete ZAF STREET RAILROAD, MISCELLANEOUS: Collision, obstructions. ...........00000 0000 cee eee ee ee 251 Collision, obstructions. . 20.00.0000 0c ccc te eee ee 249 Crossing bridge. $5 s6 se ceca nads Pe peRe he Ve MEE Gea Ee Meee renee. 200 AG COSSIN BG gos Sivaw sites cians feta beu a nered ale eam cae oe OL DOOE CLOSED 35: snes aigiets se cas pow Aa eA 4) SEGA BEER eee aoa ge 200 © COs6d. 6 essa eedigerees whe ead ayossaramereao ra mesa rawness 2OZ CLOSE dics. tx ace netuiwes ois Hoel gainn Ses ah So Ce SE aa aeA ee AS da es Ss 5252 Hleetricushocks igen ancoancks pac ade Mae Kes ecw neee ney Paik acoatans Ae 2248 Pe SHOCK ia! jeisiaVaa ie ea ae tind Aa dapa dalek wiehales obtivad-d wacdeielra Gabel ta OU: ee SHOCK Suen AAAs alec Miihd.cn sos Stulemeanea ai Smee Panes Sea ees are FOX PIOSIONGs a: Sid05,4 oi oa dies dS oR AT Aa en a a ed eae ee Pee eeeran D2 Hallof DGGE: ie. csiecohe oa nerund iat gd uN EL ae wed Ma veda wea ae aver eeu ODL “ “a S MBPO TEBISTETS das Gaeta id ae Wey Akl gale puna Oi vahataw BE Posed caaae 249 A OOP NATE raha ia inca siete Tine hee kab tale eles lala ahh Ce tits cs ence Bla sae Foot caught in fender... . 0.0... cee ee ee ee ee 248 Foot crushed, platform... 2... 000.0... c ccc cece eee ce eee e eee eee. 249 Hit by Vehicle: 5.c.0usss sian yeas ewes tees See Bowie’ ea yuands Seaoeacyae DAD OS SE CBM ote te asete ttre a Wr ae aeie de wea tet ep Gin hack Ral easeleanhd si GRAN Sian Tee wha DO ee EWES aiekeweate alah alas eS aah Ps 2a gn etek gcc PMs 250 ete TOMUGNS sai arenes Mae als Ragman nw pace Rg ada eee mae emante Oe Hs SE POD esians) Shy ito tee Gane RA Shea Neda Oiglndeaaluaahstsis manteat ieee le tae Sinem DAD io Me switeh handle: sss. ania d ae, Pose aig ad eee bees aaa wp mene DAD reed HELENS CULE saa aa ity aud be pega acess Meath eed nei RS Gee te 6 atone AR: trolley: wheel... oss ws ne oiew as ai py avleve oewerwadn aa cine la aceeeeiaas.g 260 Hit, sanloadany vehilles sn zy adsdegwoieatamarad Gaede di aaiwicieeveevans. DAS Hit by trolley pole... 2.0... e cece cece cece sees. 248 Hit by trolley pole. 2.2.0.0... coke e cece cece ee en cess ereeee secs. . 250 Hole ear ral 2.02 geese. ca 249 vesin ce od cua’ setts ead avamseoieccuc lan DAS Aa WMT CK i ea non cients end Oe ales Sah ee adele Is Ae Pe Bag a oe 249 fe ef SUNCI a oa coat i'd woe Sass 38 AG 4 x bee Wine tar gd Re ata ba diodke a hearse een EO Horseiightenell soe sass seer ania emt gage dd 1eeeandadiascevaavadacdeecc BAS TTOMBOTUMNIN GG WAY an 254Gess en deweeeweeeaekesdiesuueseyessocsr ce: BBO HormeShYIA Bs jos sam tian + day ered eee ita Ud awed yelog dese irene adeuaca BIR INDEX 627 STREET RAILROAD, MISCELLANEOUS—Continued PAGE Kicked by passenger... 00... 0 cece cece cece cette eee ee ener ns 252 Kicked by passenget.... 6.00... o cee cece ee ences. 252 Lurch of Carico: pan ca ides ay Se hd bey bene eee eae ae een dL bie 249) Glinphie tu lation, 24 4.caxs cece dues uncnavee oeoeekeess ance sauna snesae BOL Sudden starting’. .5:.c0aw suelo girly ad Wty ae bean ae ene Wet ge eae OO Be” see airy: gong accones ye abaiabaee ads eda Mee BGs ae ae OE ST OL HCO SBUAT EINE ee setae exile Adee eh toed Gl ede eMAN SEE eal Sie ODL fee BtATtIMO ay As Siok ah ae ee penne demiltnaWanad sande maa ool So CRATING 2 -a0 ie. acinne ard ob Suadehas Ge toge domed er Aedes aa Genes aed 2b Yo! SStATtING cco staneecyatae 2a dagen de Geatu.a Baad atten Boel aeuanan Ok SCALUING smociviotan oth cist eet eee etnias a dere tas ade eigaang a sae haaea ee SD APO SBUAT UIE se “oscars ayaa: Sega ene hee eee et na aetna ies 23 ian al daca PS) Seber tN gp Fas ca fees ehh Se tS oe og a Gea ate sn cot ee oe BD) SUATEING 3 -a'sjuaa Gissa lds a Mena un eue eS ) kara euns aaa e ea aa mena eka ADE PS: JSUARUN Rs Sonacneaig ae Gobo Axe aa euen Sulla hae aed aoe eel oa day eu de DOS Sudden stopping. ...... 0.0... ec ee eee ee eter eee eevee. 252 Tripping over Wire. 0.0... 00. c cect tect tenet e ener n ene 253 STREET RAILROAD, PEDESTRIAN HIT BY CAR: Attempting to save boy. ... 2.0... occ center eens, = 258 Car in charge of boy.... 0 2.6.0. teeter eee. 254 Car backing) oie cae eennG any poe ga tobsmniie cle bed gigas ae eel Pee spe ge Rea Rane DOL Carin, Charge Of DO vi esis guess ene ox aieneees 9 oe Vea aa REGS bea eee DF Car TOUndINg GUIVEs «ah saGxs sig eee ene HAST eS Aa oe eee cake dae 208 Crossing. street 4u.045:s iv gales ce apeir wnes cam age acieie Uekbe iene aha ee pdisa a BOS Crossing street: o.3 05 ach Said os tind aw ad Maw eGeeee alld berg aah Man paddce Ha DE Hole dn track: 66 fae he ARATE RAN ual Re ea apa danas Powame Oe Overhanging end of car... 201. cece eee nee teen erences 253 CNCIOF Carid «chet mienk eg Amneeis A eeetaa enue 204 ad CNGiOP CAT ss Via Adiown ceed ew ee teens SGM era ee Rae anne 204 Step Of car ecccead uae ee men eo na Ease ee ae ee ees eM eR ewieteqhe Bounce 2208 Stumbling over: rail j.i05.i.00.85 seeding edd ee ghe ed as padauw dea cegee DOF Sweeping track: geteas sac palma. a Sarin AS De Gh cee ane DOL ut HE? COR MATALN 2 ves.) aes. tohee a ei Bek egeate ees eels Weta econ An Ree ey DGD ‘STREET RAILROAD, PASSENGER INJURED WHILE ALIGHTING: Alighting and falling... . 0.00.00 e eee eee, 267 Automobile; hit by «20 axesesseqiat sees oreiess os oa cede aeed te eee ay bees 260 Automobile, hit: by ai. .cis sacs cage sng PAG A nae a ok Beedanretaese ce 2O6 Car on opposite track. ... 000. ee ee ce eee eee ae, 266 630 INDEX STREET RAILROAD, PASSENGER INJURED WHILE ALIGHTING—Cont. . PAGE Car in motion. . .. 262 . 265 264 265 266 264 Wailire tOStOw soe ee Sse hskesn ce oes eran alae as Pindadad een ee cee LOK Hole near track. soci peGdpae ed be tbat ous We Maan ade e pede te ewe ees 262 Hole near tracks occ eo) saci audek wien Sed ca Gear iw ee dwar eae ieee ns ee 200 Jumping from Cars Ae galas we dasa dad's bacheph eke? eee Se eee pare. 260 “ OO ORT ec th oo ants b dae oda das SAO SAA Aa ae Ae RE LOD « Fs SORTS a lis has tec, ahr tanta aug ne linc ale de Aine aaa Ghee eeeanEs Marana. 200. Struck by Wagon. cc cscccnen cet aeieasasgavnseeessabanisae tees ancrenee 2B Car step defective. .... Crossing streeti coco. divs vege Shady oes ce eg ge nme cdl soe eebee PRRe eee ee O Ballin @ frien. ccs3 ghee ev peed de ca weng- bss PRdw ok ee Lee eR Rd oe aa RaRes ee Falling, carstarting®, «...s.¢.4 vedeins oe eneay ekider oe ohn eee dee ese Fy ee es Falling, between car and platform. ...........200 0: fee eee e ees Stepping in trench... 20.0... ete cece ten tnen een ne es 266 Sudden starting of car... ee te eee eee eee. 262 ss SS 10h Carts Gossage tees Wicd ceamoey “tod ue Bits s eae wad Mae ve aaa eae lO OF Cal es aves Hoke ete aye eae ke ape aa ie Sede eee 208 AP? COE Car co tick rss nauih un eae ann an Saat eee te pole pes LA eos " ME: OP GAR Ss cict ist ada Manon Rake abagianind oda Wah die eiwesoiin atl adhe lOO OL CAR Seth; bike oS aches ean ihe tehg ga Whee Sakamaeicet ape OO ON POUCA ea oti das Be Ass Ca Ae chy pois oie ee a ean berg ones Ae IGS " te “OE CAN oases rise Gea REACTS ONG, AeA aee hatte hele a hte eed OS " HE OL ICAN 2 can Sem tas ioscai aad em eeaire sah bu ceneiah aeteem tise ek OG - HEN” OR SCAM Tan Sets creme Bia deine ghar elem cua clas 8 dee ORM OE CAM, drip h-noahee aang a samen erent ais SUN aie aad a aoe DOL u O° SOP CAP itowiemn eae ds we eh eeReae licens Kang Aen gn wean ton DOE a4 OO SOPCAN 45. egde tae Gee tea ned hare anraaadeadnadaeese DO4 Of Can cse). Ys wate pinnae yoo upadawivar ag mb ooo tad ea teas DOA f PS ROP CAI the. sco hit tach dieiplac iy) drat cease Renate geadlar eatebea coats DBL us as OF CE cont b tae anata tnehwedwany edd ye aNNy atow ad eee 265 a“ BE: COP CAT a iake Ge tae ae Os iene eave dante ethene es 6 ol. SORE ef OY OI CARS Seth Mea R hanes ALG hee eels Oe ot son a ote MOBS as ie ORCA Miah sR nate tetera ts uuire eons wan ine hrhisinho stad. on. te OAR es BP SOL CAT asso ge ee age welt hae en Taree Sate, weal Sey our DBO a Me) ORCA ioe ab wena aig yee ddan alaty anGh Reais omaerercs dade DOG us Me OUICAM si ivpa git siewaicre Gard Ruch hadWeod ta peewee vty ececncen, DOG Thrown tO grOUtd, 5 on ia se ceew anes ds uaee veadueen deus an veawed vovls occesn OOS we PO ROUND eee. sees chee earch Ri he takeeg soe eiie aki dawenkdewnc DBE “to SLOUN. aie esy ae eunem cimns eens ohepea gens aecod ious echrun ce 266 INDEX 631 STREET R. R., PEDESTRIAN HIT BY CAR WHILE CROSSING TRACK: pace Car coming from rear ie eed Sealteedins Daou BIG iat aie ule are neon y tecue an ocd ach Wake SOLO Ciera soit Feria den-c. does can dex Pasa oars stos pence Consens ceeuan One Crossing road Way... 6... cece etree ee teeter rece ees .. 268 Crossing street) oi) 4i.2.dd jana t Avene van aye aitay sewn oe ado eaw Sawin aac BOT 1 SBURCCU: onto dateda Sanus Pema adine ahhuena ye eehad id Pew laas een 6 Yeaeee OT SURCCU wg pda boa wiaeee alt ya pueR eeu Aare a eae ayes eae BOL HD SSURCOt a Win crineie Ge singed pone lee cua nee e ta sitet sia boeken es SOOT. SUP CCU aiid ia Goss hata CR Aa Re kee eda eee geawen 208 SUTCC co sh, eines and Meee aaead ends oe eb Ore onde bes Go kee ee 208 RS IR seach a ata tae wrk ala lar Lait oe bus a aac OBR SUWECE odes jen ne Bene eek on eh Eee Wee ee end Sede ee ees 208 BES “SUP OCU isc amici Aa ek amie nore arent made eaaehs ie, oo ta Sie oes SOOO) MS USURCCT, aiveani da Havnyost audi deere id nie ae ae GIN lala OS ass UA RSS LO. * SBbreetins Gua tokawke thee Mee oodeh delaakt allni Gils QeeubGatsdé ae gon WEL SIT CC bic. hd San Se POGhan ow Panu atavier arsed MEME ee a iewen BEL SUTCEL lus aloe rigid male ora eainagiee Baan me we MARU Ie ROSE WOME R OE EN aie eee i SBUPCOt nul vi Macey Meeranan any hala eye erent uli ciel sataitnn STD SURG Cb cher ak sa ley seta dead ick ara ope anseg onsn Aide UA Ace ee ae Oe BETES oss oxrrs nee eidt ee aoa Wicd Bee ee he a ea a ae aaa De Negligence of motorman. ... 1.0.0.0... 06 ccc cece eee cnet n ne tv eens s 268 Attempting to cross street 2.0... ce cece te teen eee eee ee 269 i view obstructed . 0... .. 0... cece cece eect eee en teense 200 Se #8 ANAC Kio tec vse seed ass Hea ee Ses ates Ae A eet soe LOL uf SE ACK uc. ca via hahaa Scan baa deel gNa Haye hg WOES Gawd ace DLO Crossing track: iii4 ce: eneielee hb ay Sana POR has eed e eG dee ee OF BES URAC iS Assaf cetyl ste Ak a ade HEIRS ARO GR MSGS REMIR DROS Paha Ad wane 208 ike PUPACK Cidia ie a tacacathn cone ineerehanaes Waves wi ttle Seles arad eens Soutor 206 ASS UTACK yy. Ace e Arete eee Nisa se CAAA ASOLO Ne HERA) as LA eee ZO BE MACK ie eas, ont Resend dose gehen ee Ba ae nas AEE yee Lea eae eA ee 208 BE “AAO ses Gc ed, PRR a2 aes a eta ed fel co Bi head tate apni cbs ah Sc “ tPACK 2) Wederienk Herbed 4 oh ee BL hon ieee ae eas BO ea ee DAL ... 271 . 272 “track... “track... “track... Crossing track at night, car speed increased... ..........00... 000 cee eee . 269 INDEX Crossing track at night, car speed increased. . Preparing to cross track... 0002.0 ee ees Crossing in middle of block . .. . . 270 Crossing between intersecting streets... 22.00.0000 eee eee HOPSE CATS... xen ns cio hea Go BE GR BOY OS WT BAAS EO OG ed oO Ol A Se BS OA .. 270 . 271 Subway............. Slipping on street. DEPCOLUCTO SSI OL chs {an Meare Statics Sas ate a edt, win ghd ea ted pene aah ble STREET RAILROAD, PLATFORMS: ]cy pIAMORM sion. cacnats aad 44 Sonne ae RA wan GiGi nin pa we ee mele Icy platform.................. » 292. SURGICAL OPERATION: Negligently performed... 6... 0... eee cc eect e cece cence eene ayes SUPERINTENDENT: Jerking belt. cigs lows acseaare aes ams COMES au ean nee: SKIDS: Fall over. ...... TAXICAB: Injuring pedestrian. ............ TELEGRAPH: Negligence in sending telegram... ......... TELEPHONE : Electric shock. . bc shock. . oe shock. . Fallot pole fara cient dot diets DSS ess cua Gea Shea PAGE 271 271 271 267 269 270 270 272 272 ‘272 . 272 . 272 . 273 . 273 .. 273 .. 273 .. 273 . 273 INDEX TELEPHONE—Continued. Fall of pole.................00. “e Se PESTLE sh toads ave ty Oe aaecn wR BU) aaa Saas Ahad aac ena act Nts ea dn tase Fall, wire breaking. 2.2.20... ccc cece cece ee eee en ences Message, failure to transmit... 0.00... ce eee ene cee een eee THEATER: Breaking of rope... Collapse of... ............. HalliGh boards tivessracuals aa deiuenit te Ais tle tl a iat ake ibe on hora Hit - by slidendropped: 45-0416 Sue sania wo Sorel Ried WSs Wee EERE s bees TITLE: Neépligence inséarGhis: 5 s:45 speweste ce BR eny wed ec ee sand ewese ea eee TOOLS AND APPLIANCES: Box: bréakin gs 428 pes pina se Soe goede ae ale as Be Renee wo ow ex aaa ees Breskine WrenChiss aecvavasce eww eae aed decane ee eke we se Sees eS Broken beltiis::c.c0:.4.-944 sis ees nqacnid hike aac Gee bon WAR Doreen GS ae ane Hammer head flying off . . sae le re a pe a cetera . 275 ... 275 Cars without brakes . . DefeCtive: TOOLS. ise s.hnn Gass gale b DA eae ee Ae OSS Daal e eee a RRR ERA Cleat pulled Off; 3 occs sth wetted cate ae heey Cee Seah an TORPEDO: EXplosiOn: Of 2 bisecd nada Gee Dias Ah ae ted phen eek waa Sense week MTack: Walker 330 o open Misa G aivatcthne une ark ature tek nadie GA Veen ae ie ae Hiunsoven, we reles ys ui Gir wad shane en ke Deny cee Mao ee Gwucs Vaud oe bane es awards TRESPASSER: Catching 100tj.c.a: 4 seyseatiep wakes reed sie e serene Metal a ‘Hit, barrel:on cables sos saeas eee s see sie sala Anuar dy dee eameolS ae aba Shot: by employeeiswaiss Ys ateand Sean es ae ed So eae Sak da ete as Shot by game keeper. .. 2... 0.2 eee ene teen eee eae Struck by train backing ...................... Struck by locomotives. acyndvser aye ava ndeae cite Stee Seton Be py Aeon Thrown from Car visaies spokes Rouiseaereu ware ane ennui ane e ek ae neds oe ‘TRESTLE: Fall Of eae Saronsete See See PR REO SIS BEM es REA ok ale gaa i Sa Eee Fea: OE soe rk pats skec Sha adh ae segs cde spe SS cag ac a A ee AEB ea ted “ pole . Steet in Ainaeenesl ee ahaa tae h (atten ed hecte Tasch nice 633 PAGE 273 274 274 274 273 12. 274 . 274 274 274 274 274 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 276 276 276 276 . 276 276 276 276 276 634 INDEX TUBERCULOSIS: PAGE Resulting from blow. .....0 ccc. cc cece eee te ee eee eee eens 207 TUNNEL: Fall of Stotie dns soph eovabiewachavcwetedia Av ees eee end ee ae ee ZIT Fall of material in... 0.0... cece cece eee ce cece eee eee ee tense cece cree es 277 TURNSTILE: i: UNLOADING: Pall of Pail eeisece. vows ie enicaate bw nadbes Geese oe rey a han eee LET VALVES: Explosion: Of ssid lsace-n eeatn oi Waled euch So aoe. 24 NS ade LON Spe one Oe SA VEHICLES: Automobile started by trespasser ............ 000.00 c cee eee eee ee ee es 282 Automobile, collision with . 0.0... ec cette ee eee ee e's 280 Vehicles, collision between. ... 6.0.6... ce rect tne ee en ee QUT i Wo (Betweeny-5.4.% «2d phi Saudia aabuebrawiie s Sageawevabaanwas LOL es ° | DetWeGIiy 0c 24 dee apa were he eee Sera ameee ates 282 He with building material... 0.0.0.0. 0c cece ee ee es 279 a “with obstruction. . 0.0... cee cee eee ee 279 Collision with car. 22.0.0... cece cece cece tee eraeereeen es 280 CAN a2 Bed Gielen aera Aca eead aa Aor ede HOweea Dae paaeuns LOL “ BS AGAR ro Uns Mel eathraeay die da tang neem hah Peat tos ne tae RLG AA ORD COs Giuk tae semnteas aes Ud anneiey ee smed ses Reese seaety 28S 4 OP ACAD ii sbst sean cou coe, wiaeveaNlarn ly Ceteh arerteta ree hee eer ta’e hie saad See os DRM telephone pole. i2s was cgee enue eel nut aiaawwh a naka adden DSL trolley: Poles: o53.5 sive aay peasy siakintiss Seek lus Waeewkaw eeonde 280 vice cease 281 Child PunOVer: issn ee eshiciosice Gualda bd obs d wages awd dabe wee ey BTS OVER Salgirs ass aun he ai ean awe nas nt Rae ak eit yaleein eae aaa wie ee ose LTS OV OTs oatennd. Ver hapaenaca Mathias . vcr seus oeapaletgoes uta a wen eden ane pace LIS fe SO VErtuINed ss failing to: 1OOK's sex) Ss.cceagaiatiald Shae teed te aoa Leese, BOS Pacts for Jury. ices anc ddnn wis og teins dao ecina Meee Wied nee anitoanesae BOS (Grade=GrOBSIN GS 2 Indias ng tice duels a Gd eke ay aealbe da Race oe eee mae OOS, Motorman increasing speed.... 0 0... ete ee ee ee BBR Orders, co-employee disobeying ........ 2... 00.0 c ee eee eee eee ee ee ee B83 Presumption of negligence .. 0.0.0.0... e cee ce eee eee ee B82 Knowledge of persons on track... . 2.0.20. occ ce eee ee es 838 Mutual error of judgment .. .. 2... 2... ec ce eee eee ee 833 Trains of different companies... .......... 000 ce eee ee cece cece een eevee. B84 ‘Train with? Vehiclevsd ais spanned arden pean ze ang Maa etna kisi darmansoaanne wood Truck driver, person riding with. .......... 0.0... cece cee ee eee eee. 888 COMMON LAW: Employers? a¢ti24 3.20: saeco Gow euhed aeeoue sent en areeada ona dun Od When verdict not sustained on theory of employers’ act .................... 334 COMPLAINT: Accident, facts: Stated cncccicwe caea nd soeagewe peep eytiothe esa keeke ea gede ee BOO Allegations, proof permitted... 0 0... cece cece ee eee. 336 es ANG PlOOles acne she wiesanddaned ohare eda sacneaeeredwpimen Bao fe SpeciiciactSsncc ers xe arte tta ewe Geake wiadoan meade dance BOD Allegation, safe: placeis j3:.22.0097 ss vain diabuuraan de pabane deus aeapawen BOC i BAL eMPlACEs ic giedul wailans Gi ada mada kes Anaad Ream aedawein BOL ‘e not sustaining proof. ... 2.0... eee e ee es 387 INDEX 653 COMPLAINT—Continued ‘PAGE Allegation, admitted .. 0000.0 e cee cee eet cee teen etter eee O84 ns common law and statute.... 2.0.0... cc cece eee eee ener eee ee ee B85 AL HOVER a cremains ecnatinrcnennanadamnd tran ene eee y SON SUMMCIENUisal> opie ma nddaeiencon na meilandud Aeon nencsaiaomaasvOGe negligence, nuisance. .. 0.0... cece ce eee teen eee ee ee 886 as to premises, demurrer. ..........00. 00 cc cece ee ee eee ener ee es 886 Amendmentatitrial: 244.4 vewswwstee-as Wend ec eee dow ee eerie reas ae OOD Amendment at trial. 2... ce te ete eee eee O87 Appeal, superintendent... 00.00... 0c cece cee ett ee eee eee es 885 Corporation, when organization admitted... .......0..00. 000s eee eee ee es 885 Causes of action, stated, numbered... .........0 0. 0c ee cee eee ee ee. 886 Causes of action, stated, numbered... .. 0.2.0.0... cece ee eee eee ee es 886 Disease, specifically alleged. 20.0... kee ce eee eee ees 838 Disease, proof, general allegation. .........00 0.00 cece cece cece eee n ee ees. 888 Dismissal of complaint ........... 02.00. cece cee cee ete eee eee 884 mn “ eomplaint, rule on appeal... . Repay alah beh tdaeaiae ened WbSepleniaidy BOM “ ““pulevon appealic: ace nc as Gade dans onademmesoaatnewedeancekue Od i PUG OW APPEAL x5, casunncs a ca vneiead sang ees ae eeiuey qaaaooas BAD os after verdict for plaintiff... 2.0.0... 00 cece cee ee eee eee es 888 Bing lovers Set cass Seok cota Gaetan deuce ntreenes euenwaaen BAe Excavation, cause of action... . 26... cece cece ce eee tenet cen eens 884 WMalbsof wlasseec4 fi3.s setae Ge agaed whe veia@euvalaaaas Madea saad Mal audedameiadmeyaainas BOL Running over pedestrian... 001... cece te eee eee ences O87 Injuries, particularly alleged. 2.20... cc cee cece e ees 886 Injured, proof under allegations. .......0 0.00.0 0e ccc ceceveeeeseesees sess 888 Injured, proof under allegations. .. 0.6.2... eee eee ee es 888 Motion to dismiss at opening... 0.2... cee eee eee en ee B84 Motion to dismiss at opening... ©... 0.00.0. cee cee eee eee 885 a s ““ decision reserved, exception... ........... 0.0002 -0 ee ees 885 ce Bs «defects not pointed out... 2.2... ee ee eee ee. 836 se a “© cause not Proven... 0.6... eee cee eee eee eee ee OOF “A S OS” RR SORY: Ol UPA 95.3 Go caoctcay «siete lenin e wera arenl a aang weber e WOOO MR, ER = BEE SEs his ao coca Sl ae ae Uist Saleh meatier tabla Hemera ech OOD) Negative, not required in... 60... eee ete tee eee 886 Not dismissed, evidence .... 00.00... 0... cece eee ee cee eee ee B86 Objectior:t6, ab tial... ce eas ea nnce se cow dagagee seGdar es we Gargergesu gy 888 Surplusage: x sutssxerdnmeecs naga pa aeeeixs Mor Wee were ve ee ee eae eR Eee er OOS in common-law action. ......... 0... c ee eee eee eee ee ee eens B87 Ea common-law action. ... 0.0... ieee eee eee eee B87 654 INDEX COMPROMISE: MER Ol aca? acta anes Gee San Seem cea eek onl ee ce snesht Rane onan) Setar eras Sees OER OF. 4. 2 ah Ses RS a ated diane ste as aoa See BE es a ee Se ew CONCLUSION: OPER DE es cam-oss Sie dewa dca pe goatee Sata tele aU RR a satees CONDITION: Previous and subsequent to accident. ... Préstumied: CO:COntin us ..0 0: cva.3. Goce ape acta hs one Bed Reda Galpaoun SaaRan ee CONJECTURE: Freedom from contributory negligence... 20.0.0... oe ce ee eee Calise-Of Injury .ca0 can iiee ee hae Oo Tay ade AA pa twareuemadeae ewes COMER? IRR GT 3% cole vaerresae eee upeADe os Ge Gorn wad MAGN Ok ibe dean ah oa CONTRACTOR: COMETACTOR Gob 8 SR acd At a Ae Sle OR ae ees Fs De ad ee . 340 “ c “ce Care, employees vis os gad eciedudy CRG ads TAR Pend eaeealb bakes s ba bake cc 6c Employees of, agreement ............. Liability, city employee . explosion... .. employee of subcontractor. .. Independent, recovery by servant... 2.200000. cece ee i settlement with. .............0 00.00.0045 Warning, employees... 2... 222 ec cece ccc ce euetenucesennes Reversal as to owner. . independent, causing injury....... 00.00.0000. eee eee violating ordinance... 2.6.0.0. 0.0.0 ce eee eee OM PlOVees: Geis Bs socks a eas AE wane a aia beeen ten ood beeen gpauelne CMDIOY CCS syste Seas Seales hal alate ok Barth Gee ae OS Andee aaa bans OP URY ets ceria pinks, RE eats Aa araeanecentetin Wate Rad tech ae IS PANNE RIQNS. Sprains rapes tyme ee eal ie Se eae as done negligence of subcontractor .. 0.0.0.0. 0000 cc cee ce eee eee CMPlOVES a wie a nose weg Read Ma pa oA RON # ue nn eee Sawa employee of subcontractor. 2... 0.0.0.0. 00 occ cece ee cee eee employee of subcontractor. ............ employee of subcontractor... 2.0.0... 0.0 cece cece eee ce eee not servant of owner. .. 2.2... 6. ce cece cc cccaee PAGE 339 339 339 . 339 339 339: 339 339 340: 341 341 340 340 341 Baling brick. is yanhticdern gees oko Oe cated amy wees Wades Aare ae ey eet . 841 340 341 341 . 841 . 840 . 341 . 341 . 340: . 840: .. 3840 . 340 . 340 . 340 . 840 . 341 INDEX 655 CONTRACTOR—Continued PAGE Usesof elevators cs sunicinraesdeen eases seas yee eee Tees B40 No insurer of employee. .... 0.0... cee ce cece ee eet etree ee es B4L CONTRACT: Carrier, negligence... 0.0... cic ee cece ce eee rece tence eee ne te tee eres GAZ Carrier, terms not read... 6... cee ce cc cece eet ete te tenses BAZ Damages; MMi OF iid ewig Sacrdudadaes Panevan eet beR eee Atenas om yee OAD, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: Contributory negligence. 2... 6... cect t eee eee es BAZ A DSENCBHOls Gan cea ee woes ia dt heen aba nh ed noon an b8 See Raa te eee ae ae 4S Crossing rack:s 24 sau) on bel acetne a eg Pep AR ate Meroe aa Pee pene. Geode Hreedone from: verse ue daond ac cies -ee ok sete Sess Vee Wes ct se eeeaeossae OFF By EONS eit heshcac ie SS ASHORE SE Ree Be eee das BAS “from, question for jury. 2.0.00... eee ee eee BAZ question for jury. .... 6.0... cc eee eee ee B42 fallure: tO"ShOW: sac eecae ti owndsae Haan gas a4 Sha peeea poe O48 circumstantial evidence... ........0.0...0.0.0.0.2......... 848 prool PequiPeds. <0. sccadianae gees ciggier gens thee gear nenaes B43 Matter ot laws. 21nd wa cdees aes sae ecusie sess Yee meee e eens saben bee BAZ Machinery defective. .......0.0 0.0. c cect eee cere eee BAB Incompetent person. ........ 6. et tee eee BAB Forsetfultiess i sikia a sc eneacda eit aaah sd va We adiad de sUaeh oad Cie O44 Rules 68 tO ek SonGak cola hale Gah eed A wa Ree Aa koa Re cone enn oneeebegn awrede Rules; no withess.:: 2.5 ccc seers ea se yeaa sas ped arabe? eeeawinege wen BAZ Spectilation.:is-sianicee dogs eae eee kee omens cee wey agg B48 Plaintiff’s employment. .... 0.06.0. ce eee ee ee B48 Presumption a9'tO. ssaaves ceereves es ee ed aneg aids pons ardouseastaacweesvcss 848 Of decedent .aciccce cecal ederewe sates cee nee Gade be Rha se wdawdden vere O44 Of decedetitec24520ucs tna dian Gee eae Ae er 2s eee Sa eae anaes ale 14S CORPORATIONS. Agents, competent... 00.6... 066 eee ee B44 InsigniavOfi.: ovigsepeasd saaedcted oy eng tacnar ea nas pecemannaratiansetnay BAF Liability, corponsite AGta. «24. 22 c.s22 ae stee seats crease ski be eviews Be Liability; servants sacsxs2 eee cure ee reieesee ye pe teee ace ee wee elses Sos B44 Officer, declarations Of... 0.6... c ccc cee ee eet, B44 Officer, declarations of... 0.00.0... cee eee eee ee. B44 President, admission of... 2.2.0.6. 22 eee eee B44 Superintendent, declaration of.............. 0. csc sees ee eet e teen renee 345 656 INDEX COSTS: Extra allowance........... COUNSEL: Improper conduct, new trial.. ......... ....-- COUNTERCLAIM: Negligence, checking accounts. ..........-.-0 ee cece ce eee ener teeter nes COURT OF APPEALS: Questions reviewed by... 00.0 occ cc ce ete nen ene ne nes CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS: Tab laty Ob gs ke hac satin Aes Ged AO ey ht Oe Le eo we RRR ele LER CROSS-EXAMINATION: Gross-examinationiess vasciess y ev eea aes a eee Be eee E EO ESA pa Collateral: matters: . 22s sca..<0esa vee foes es ese 4a NSS Ce HEH DEER ee ee Contradicting witnesses .. 2. 2.2. .tteteene ne Contradicting witnesses .. 2.0... 0. cette teens Contradictory statements. .......00000. 0c eee ee .. 346 . 346 Impeaching witness. . . Impeaching witness. . . Matter of rights. oc4s0 sia vanes dete rxueanies Weegee Vice ah ush Oeeeeau sékY Striking out testimony... 2... 6. nee eee CUSTOM: Tri BUSINESS gai 4 pene aon dase AE aad tae Mas yan aes Bex ae Ae nee ee es Dangerous’ Places ak. 4 switdw eeiceese sss Saaas os 6 Sahel Uae eee tes coe rae Guarding elevators si nvaseKce pated dees wea yar gees chan dernhae Peaed laws Long standing notices gs vecsewss by de ee cee dead Fiuwe bieiia wae peed wsdl Method sisi sana vee oe Se eka s ce ee Ve Ss Aa aha wa Notice, starting train. ..@ 2.00.2 PASSED LETS!) 5. catenins wees Mut DOA Oe Re aloe am eS ha Maan as Sees Poles, testing of ... 6.0.2... 000. c eee eee . 346 DAMAGES: Continous ier agelaa Agnes MS HERTS LG wanda bie dad Bed a ea Bae Continous 4 is scioe Genie Witjn dee nelee as . 851 Death, Nabiity: fOr. oo sccm aeae us we barge ee we Veieyndens dea Wage a Pe ehee abd nextiOf Kitle.ce scsi ass we va wn eee “ Of SOM is ee ich Oa GG elie et ares Ae em oe 5 als doen PAGE . 845 . 845 345 345 345 345 346 346 346 345 346 345 347 346 347 346 346 . 847 347 350 351 .. 850 .. 351 INDEX 657 DAMAGES—Continued 2 By - PAGE Disease} resulting: < aies S40 DANGER: Anticipation Of. a: c6c5 sacs papas yee ad Wb send oui ede GMA PREG ES eeag ew BOS ‘Anticipation, employer... 02.0... 0. cc cece cece eee ee eben tte ene eens BDZ Apparen ts fbi esc ho daed ahs PGs Ree LOAM Siebel MRS sale a ane ei ee OSs Appliance, dangerous... 20.0.0... cece cece eee ee cece ete te tenet een ee es B52 Building, lighting of... 0.0... occ eee tee eee tte eens BOF Carecused for jury. iiie- ews na onda cae ede nciseed eines nas oat Goks cule ae TOO Care, protecting from .. 0... 0... cc cece eee eee eee te eee tect te eter ee B58 Defects). tests ss cccucctnd sl diwines Wad Wevice tea thee eae as See ees eed awae ae BOO DisOVEry Of ic5is. oes Wied pis aa Se hen meea ae sls pay Dehua Ee aan ieee BOZ li ai Ste scene encaunanson Rabie Lian ieedawer meee EE SOP eis geen Ge aE RES Gudea yee Tae LE Ree Season age eds BOO: Duty. to instruets asses ceeds ei weed edad PA tena ae Sera ga PEE eea a eee, BOO Failure:to instru¢tiseds. 4 sea ce dite casseng OARS OME oes PRA Soe ad eS EAA eNAE EN OOS u INS HUCt. wis. seas Bev ee weeL RS ae be hes be ROMY Eos Fe ees Beare Oe BOF es CINSHTUCLS vine gaan oxos-og aod ee bi ake eRe Me wae ese ge BOO Damages’ sis ce 2evlesvs bta Siew ad bi ee Siew eee ewe es ee as 806 No eye witness. «4 “SUPHCIONGCY Of .cx xk vac ena aaaterd aun sene ORaei agave eben ee ewe ae wine DOT. # sufficiency Of. 4. sascssanoanetamen thse gegae era sen aee Pee coe ie BT cctyeek eam Oto PMIBCONEY Oh. yy yas ioe wedebewdess Men tow lecenedd gaueague cave Oe sh ee (guiliclency. fy: 44 14:1 veg ares Seats dwsude walvaniaehya serex BIA SE SUCLENCY Gls} cas o¢5, 2 Gd sk, ae doevlnne ne Vee oat tr oa oe ee INDEX ; 665 EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ACT—Continued : FAGE Notice, sufficiency 68... Goossen se boa Ge oe eae ade ae a OTD SO. BUAMCION CVdO beck» S4eideccieana caer et nae teinae Wisse ARaN Da legedeeea en eer BED. ue SUMCIENCY. Ol: 2 4.us gaheake aABaasen haved ea wees Wear areca ive ee U4 Hf SUMCIENGY: Ol. vous were mpore ee ay cea sh bedead Aeden ine oan aw eae Te HEE BORVIGE: OF; chase cu cid nace ota guid aig casted ashanti ie doshdee SE onias Otek en Awan TOT Plea GINS rwiaan amaawacdt io deuas cette cowannisden Selene GaN a nine Saeko te BOS PICHON Gs 45cciae even da etches ware a REPRE ve By UR Tae uk cate dneee een OLB PICRGING) nigra Cail wanlaaiere Whe eye cton RR G RI BRE ad aoe a ca tiale eer cn IONS Pleading... shes cS ae A Sat isa See acetyuaich dasmiysehca aGate dude eelavivinta Mal oun iay. 1O AE alte heise, Puneawed ss Ro ekk ae Wewmeubues aaumpcien be eeneadsboee nema: ONE: PROOMIMVACHONEe< f.ke sea Laman on BeGnGA adv peeelad ge Waele Malae-ae wa nates BIE RISK; SSS PtONVOl, soiaecce wag yada Welane-netuedas eben ob anes bere eawe BOD i ASS TIMP UOL AOI: (nar naa antenna eacersaise anette ainidecems sack weiser ieteneauiea wa 2 00 OPS “ASSUMP COD OR.» «shes ntivernnt csincniale debt dats aris aul hdae as buen eaunncoaalae meee BEL Ouest ioe Fon me a6 ks ox Acc eiea ihn sed adedeehemneadeecmaddeetyae eee as POR | TYP sass pear acallin bodta nara oh taayvsen aod send gear SOs Pata Co ae adene OND . POR UIE aoa ce tases aoe enki idle Gacaud emu era nehinals Giasaaetac elie danins BMS. LOW LILY. ad, aired Cd. csateae aes Sees paren ete cen etd aie nena tere ede: FORA UT escis Se aula maces ar ots Rae easy tisha aoe Base woe Vee OLE We! MEOR UP Y eaten user ao Ne te oa adn Red thn Dae ems ore a pin ae taints 373 ee for jury......... nda unaeae Gad leensacn inv Reee hau Wasa e uss atasaeguudoe Gast ue bince tae 375 TESS. Gasca sith denatiere peaian ed Samadi ae as ay Se RIGA Rae eee ena ey OU FRUIERT 6256S Gee ed Sy Bek ee al cect SoA te Nes olen Se Lae REA oA dad OOS BeCHOn 3 Of ACh or 4 4. ecae sr eyeeveages eke er MUR eeercheeR eeeREr anne ree BEE Safe: place’.c) ss ua ee eeke eae ba gules WEES ence era wen aw es ea eemme be eeger BLO Signals, at common law... 2.0... 20. eee ee es 868 Superintendents, for jury... . 2.2.0.6. cece ce ep teers es B93 Superintendents, for jury... . 2.00.0... cece ce te tt eee e eee BFE Superintendent... as qanewameomaren genoa: ge ca-.eu ulna ee eke ee cen ee eden BOF Superintendent: « sone des cease oeeede week ne we ee eters we wae PENA Moen aie ke OOK Superintendents «2 ciscdescawes 236002 5 Bowen nle Goede Bien ee aeewere ents SEL Superintendent. . 0... 0... ec ec eet ct ett e eee eee ee B72 Dulperintend ents a. sie. cuss aenedred sent dirrvnnrenaanaia wie ancwpat de AeAeh epi wanted apellgudasieeaiee Oe Superintendent. 2. os gcse Howe yaar qwae gre seepeenl ee gouge enya BES Supermtéendentin. ayes va cicewox buae eww erere serena se acteeeaninas nese OCS Superintendents cc saied nese naan ust ats caudate eR ewes eeees Hew teenes OLA Superintendent. . Raut hacibur aide ee eroda oR costly Tha ar ea ONE - Superintendent, Sais iat nee Gham aUOgacdeey aanins Segmedunaine ny ata paras BLO hen, a REPRE HE. scl de loarnteaaiyeenmieccin dercics OG 666 INDEX EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ACT—Continued Superintendent, negligence of .. 00.0... 1. ee ee cece teen eens “ce Fellow servants sic. janie boa warn attains Gdg Soe Se aie OOS Sees TOOL}: Break OFF haa toedeicacnccised-4 and Gansta Dioung ly oyn aah ial Gsm hanks aahy aoe eID Tools and appliances... 2... 0.0... cc cee cee ene ce eee ee eee eens Waiver Ofte e464 wala inked ane od Sita ba ee Oa ee oa Ways anid means oo.) tyre cies ety Aree eek eee idee Me eae ea AR Seda . 869 Ways under act. ........... Ways under act . Oh cal PEO) teeter soot ee hm hha cha on ki ENGINEER: Qualifications sy vajerec cert eke as dy eeen-an hs Gs ee: ae pews Bee oeed Bee eee ees EQUITY: Damages, special term ... 0.2.0... c cece eee een ene n een tees ESTOPPEL: Master estopped as to notice......... 0... cient cence ee te ees EVIDENCE: AMISsiOM Of a. Lag aiesGak a An. e cue AA bat eek of anata team a ghy- dots Admissions, past event. ... Danger? 26 cane gai ed Rha Pea eae Oa Ria ee OPN AAT soe dost eae SE Some Defendant’s evidence for plaintiff... .. 00.00.0000 eee een ee Expert, conclusions 10ff 0: eisaay avast ates nee sabe nmi g Raa Re Soak ae aaes Identification, cause of accident. .... 2.6.6... e eee eee Incompetent.:5%: sainie eeeey weed ive eck tem seaass SS Rees nade bad anode Sex Tnnerediblets: :.cne5: vse es eee eeneates evinadicaion Meee eeu ewes Incredible iw 354 se esd haecatnan ode Aas Giger aaee we wee Se de Rew Dhee eee . 378 Tveredibleves aces gh ead he kee bh date aden €4 Be NY Seas Improbable .cj5 Si, Gta aa naiieeucnlys sigan wen choke Atewenaon seamen Sikes .. 877 . 378 Trrelevant .. ......6. 000 es Leading questions .. 20.606. c ee elec ences neueuey Mem Orang a vii) ee ine hare e ee Yate aged k Be aie ae Ge inked cabo Negatives win aendtor ai pacnris nee ge'e -aek ae Aermiccuae ck wa sands Newly discovered: ws: s¢s4.243 ee ade ck Ga Ns Book aere eRe Bee a ee ees OOo! HAMMAN noc gc srhcp Ssh GOAN 6st PSC a NS toads smear e wma Moen he ek OpinODS iji2%5c5-aien oo Res de Bak Se, ob Re See haleh Oe LAAN EAE gle RUNES ake BOS No proof of negligence... 0... 0. eee te eee ee. 880 JOPY May Cisreeards 55); Meeg ya gewrak eae ease eee pe SA eA ease ne OSL Mathematical calculations. .2. 0.2.0... 0.00 cc cece teen eee eee eee es BBL Material an: scaffolds. 224 vide deanna Sodas eens SRGeet eas eeess ciao BSL Qualifications Ofs i2 2c cake cece se wees ed anes a SE eRT AR eee ge oo es O82 QUESTIONS 10.0), Laaninceaveeddernaed dvadnadwanees De ean oe adien andere BOL QUEStIONS (Os. 45.6563 BGS Shoda ee oee bade neue see atue O88. Plumber, qualifications... 000.0000 eee ee B82 Sparksiol Mess. i5s4 eA sekw nee weeanetes Weeds pees gh Paee eee eae Oe Speculative evidence. csc cee 5 eee ee besa eesd Fe ws Paes he ddee eda weraea ae’ JOO TOS tig vie anne ees d Weigenc wanda 2s aan ees SOSH AERA a ee es 8S! Ustial Custom i s2:he uta Saatien Beas Waly araugeanid ean he ROW Ee ae Boe “Te MOtHOdS! 44. cuca o Ge ae Ge sade d ele BRAGA ee AREA Re Mele Deane ee ERE eae OOn SE SMETHOAS!: ics cive avs AQ oe Bid ni Mie d wale SUA a mails MO aah dece ade OBL, SS AMOCHOGS) cc. 52a nage eeere canes Cap Salto as HHS rive eg hoe Meee Ge ae 4 OBS Workman, instructions. ... 0.0.0.0 ce te eee eee ee eee. 880, EXPLOSION: Boiler testi-c352048 sive) aan Abe BA eae We ed oe ee Renta eo coe caceoees SY OSS Boiler testi ci Guces ot cgtl Late whl halad- Ga daoe exe dean ienacnesse Oa Bie elds Sa oe OSA Danger, instruction as to 21.1... eee e ee eee. B84 DYMEMItes4- Sinwon taeda nde ama mannan em Yeunbeti a edeaey ee ad egy dees eS OSS: Fire works, negligence for jury. 0.20.2... cece cee cee ce ee eee ee ee B83 Instriletion; dangers. 3 vc)09 asi sag Me ease cetttv a a eek ag ele eee ea eee hae OBR Negl sence: o.cgsre se ye eige ee ee Buk Pha WES Hee Syne aed a dee Haas BBO Ordinances ic esas ceaeveabag Sees eE a oe wae eae oR Gae ay Ald Bead gH Geek ae BRO Premature:ioy.¢ vsese5 cho neh beh aieaucds Gidea aon e eae teak ed BOO: AOS OSU anc eas ane a acedas eee een hd hak nak Maes ee eds Bae BOS Steam, pipe sc Gainey ators Geek as ade aeln oat we eee des Alea ge week ee oe 4OSS Tests, question for jury... 0.0... eee ee ce ee eee ee ee es 883 ‘EXPLANATION: Failure to operate gates. 2.00... oe re ee ee eeu. 884 Facts; undisputed i4.c-c.05.07 cs wrasedes ds wd macau line rand ougaz anes BR4 INDEX 669 FALLS: PAGE. Brick™in bul diag oy 6 5 caes saaased nosgarenned onidasae ais deny wn arpadous Seduce deaenen OSD. Basement. 32..2.eavgctas sews iagny dao eae hae = dele ha ge wes Hee age BOF Cause of, connecting defendant. ........... 0.00.0 c eee cece eee eee ee es B85 Contractor, protecting employees... 2.0.2... o eee eee ee e 885 levator shattia occ: ccpeie cjesgie ace) vs aides w aselaviy ple Guise elie nave Sublapds sue stueseoarece gedaueracna'es OOS Flour sacks; warming’... nsccncccceiwapaba dante avamsagcapaws mn eeakemennee Ok Ladder. . . wvaiielonsh hos s angst anion aA ealdieda nan SANE Wom gate Sie eapag Omaha Atay HOO ITU se csc dol ral nbc ctyeicadecn unm alae ted ela eee Mahala cet an, SO PURO ery Tail li.) dc cean inde ance seat sagows weemunen en ante mem yaad mena Kenid eyed OOH FACTORY: mad os WACTOIVAH CE Wise cac ecerresnyale av ane as ale ane nx meh Corey eile wena ee head ea ea OOO FELLOW SERVANT: KelGOWwSeivanti.,. hind nave dows dade Seuss ls yy ae eee waa ena Pelee wavase ge (O80! as SEITE HUTA Day 4d diy owed Acca hs esse wes Saar nea eae en eee ldo onal aes IB SO OS «Seater the ya ss 0s liek ey gi dy cogs as sale EE ACUHIORs ci ysis SB REY SRo-ka Sets Fy aac PRR RE Pee Soe eaeao ee BOO Andemaster, Negligenc@ss Lene. custereetedndeabGe thems hmrcadanenmennas BOO GOmpeteney Ob ssice cesuees auteudbiadeaddiwon ay wuwlde A Se Auteuineredia PHRMA Roane ae OOO! Comiiionlaw, TUS: 3 can as aad aan ewe tkua da aa Rana ee eRer wmv cs am OSE Common law, TGS. a. an cccearpeceacnas engage abe and eee -ae te aa oa OSU! Engineer, negligence of... 20.00. 0 eee tet eeee e. 886 Fall iof: chute COVEFY ch ain sendy yee Aen En amen saay eagle Wee ws aGes Rew raw OOO Negligent: «.-acecvdas eevemues dbase tine se aeriwes pees dame vor seaeeweyes O80 Managerof business:. ... «. sesass ex seuss seea devalcs Sosa aeee sve yareesacys. B86 Rules protecting. ........0. 0... c ccc ee teeter eee ee B85 Sis TAIS PIVEN, DYE syed ached abetene eedadde s Paeashne ty Aner oS Sees Shepaew SAE idse todstad bodsaes a dus OOO Superintendent, acting as.. 0 66-2. eee ee eee eee ee ee ee 885 TelegraphyOperstOr 0. sci ccecoa sun semassueland hha Mame denMnanr ges eons iawn BOO Volintéersiinavwr ex Suir Guar Gte pen scoen wn tomas ahem ahaa oie ee OOO FENCES: Covenattfor repaltsisss prcesuriyee ts ee te atinn ee co meee enti BOF Covenantifor repaitss.: «cusses sear seanes we eedssw an esiss Meneadeedesr sd aess BST RailtOad ccs scence + on dw avaed Hand move ehMa RR DR OS ae DENTE ES eh ee eden tere. BBL FINDINGS: Viee pringipalis : xs04se 52a wenden peania naan antawe BPTI Ge Hees teed anene ie Or 670 INDEX FIRES: Clearing lari p.59.30-3:5:00 0 wie aod ea Alc ed 6 ac Gia) EVO Dskesh G Ghee 4 Re Mag hs Poe SRLS Damages, owner and insurance company... .....-. 2.0.0.0. cece eee ee ee 887 Damages; proof Ole sx vc svacen Senco pee alae ba Seed rene pee ee eE Expert: t6stimon yas ssccaecit a toaenad-xcies ay ae seuss pak sere edo eRe ee eee Insurance companies, subrogation of ...........-- 2.0.02 ese e eee eee oss! biy; increase: Of: ein, ohn ay cadet aha eee edie Ahk ae eeaeraaee HORSE Loss by, TeCOVELY. «0... 0. eee ce ccc ce cece ceeseeeveceeeees Laan caeeecn: . 888 Source of, evidence... 2.22.6... eee cect eee teen anes : . 388 Sparks, prevention Of .. 00.0.0... ce cee ce ee eee eens Spread. of wlisbilityss sowie sae cowe aos s aca ® Se eee taste ea abel God Spread’ of ability iccwss. ox aaes cae e\ catso ey ee te tees 4 BS OW EA EL ee FIRE ESCAPE: Dabor laws i acdastiastiontis. Osho tment acer aanal otetace aetna canon, dors ctr teeta Manas FIRE WORKS: Contractor in charge of... 00.0... occ c ce ce ce ce ence en ee enews FOREIGN CORPORATION: Piling Certificates sis)csi0 oeud-c esas waa So eela GRE AS eat alae annend boREwS FOREIGN STATE: Injuries sustained in. 0.2.0... ccc ce eee cee eeenes Injuries sustained in. 2.2.0... eee eee eae . 888 Jurisdiction of action... 2.0.2... ee ce eee cere e tev enas When common law controls... ..........0.0.0 0.00 e eee Laiwiot placeiis Gaiuor Gin ei 4 ae on Ske eo eee bbe 8 Guede es Prove, failure to.. ...........0.0.0.0.0.. Reénacted by state. . palasdese i siteci eee Tasca PA aes ey Right of action under ...... Unites States, Neils Og dow wins sn cy egg oro de cece Paso Seadoee acca FOREMAN: Acterol, fOr {UPd Se ocd Gana ina head maenbea ald dalle aoe «oe Assuring of safety............ Definition of... . Diaeemaes earners Dupin cesT Nga c: Detail of Work «4. dcuu ewes dak va yande oe dea Se a homo Roas tee habe Directions Of sy ech ce eee e wee os ee OW basin nds Failing to point out danger. ...........0.......000 000000 eee Failing to point out danger. ................. PAGE 388 387 387 388 387 388 387 387 388 388 388 388 388 . 389 389 . 389 389 .. 889 . 389 og O91 . 389 . 390 . 390 ... 391 ... 390 . 391 INDEX FOREMAN—Continued Mistake of. IN@glIZONCE:Oli as swat arin kdiay cuenta snd eee base dae aula Gage nrtmuiehae ss Negligence of intervening... 00.0.0... ce cee ce eect eee ees OMISSION OF UV tes soy aie sess eis ce mn ogee soe wien GR a OS: Berwin bless Orders Troma esse. boy sess ssi cepa siueba sara sha aheh ea dL eRe eA UA OER c “cc “ce Promise to-curé défetts..< ss a2de be saga yawns weed pea net yoke oe, eo we bese Representatives Of... 000. oc en ce cence ence ens RelS plied (celen On Ol occ e ts clam canai ep emda ineehnamwchY aie iia as Safe place, employers’ act... 0.00... cee ee Superintendent, employers’ act... 20.00.0000 cc ce eee ees When not superintendent. . FORGERY: Porged ‘drat te paid 4 aiwsdawcasveg@easowsuceneeparten beer ackuweeeasasas FRAUD: DISCOVER YAOl. cen > audot aaiacasied erataaRaangatand aielana reac at aman ate eee ANVItIN GRAN evinces eavtlns eae yeenewlen et mEReerenEd ReNewaeeeoneee ce GAS: ACCIOCHGUTOM: once on au eersinemecas ae Swlee bie RE Raa de SERRA Senne Plog teeL aE And electricity cc sess Gest ae ene Gene an wee RO ee ee ad ee eae FER LOSION OE 55 ic c55 5h cad 3 eels) ance aman ac angele alas Sata ephAd inlw dohue uaa coi a tan GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION: Police department... 5 cc0 2 jenn ea eh eneeuy abe nddet ee et Siegen gale FRR ES GUARDS: After ‘accidents. ai: .ccccenud cee ead iekne eee ca eh aan ane eae Tae Apainist accidents isc) 3:3 aa gos voaiia vadacaw accaeal ara ele haven aren des dake weaned Gassel aes Custom int other States: jc. s.scoeca-cceaids scorn aac ace sar tormnase ea Pa vt alle acacdealn se Clustominry ctnil ptt ss casi vsime vic seme vgs eye aweue woremnes veayusuays . 394 Danger anticipated . Failure :to guards 2. gece ages: snes bd Satins tone ARAM Rade ee BREE aS PAW tk to guard, labor laws: oc: cicocsaicetenocesrmncows aeatan eae nened Oo AO BUR: o. acnteves + teteaniew easton wish eeeneened hk eee eae eR IROMIN asks deathes hohe sinioatacsevay dap arene arene canna aedtoninnitanie ater from, use of machine... 2.2.6... ete eee eee front, COMMON IAWs..x. so nwcc-ninn's weweersn Meee Were eeerMmateN NIRS ‘hosetiard, Tabor 1a wigs. abs deacp ai cualiisesg avast’ abaarndskegobtina ley ddinansensiigls suede aya 671 PAGE . 391 390 390 391 390 .. 391 .. 390 390 390 391 390 . 390 390 . 389 391 391 391 392 392 392 392 . 392 394 393 392 392 392 393 393 672 INDEX GUARDS—Continued PAGE, Pamure 46 Suard sie s.54 le siaecais Sy we'd uy Heaa Le REMADE Ae SRA eee HE Ay OVO Himployees) sca ecas cae asiead ce eere shawls as Wee eel a eg eees ead pee ae ae te SO2 Impracticable, proof... 2... 6... cece eee erence tec en ee ee cece eee, B04 Inspection, failure of... 2.2.0... cee cee eee cee eee 898 Tabor law shat ti os-c2 0 nc0's one da cian Genes ws ae eal Ee Vea ig OOS Machinery, labor law . . Syd a eieea tae hdns ee Sty cee os sai aan GRA at failure to guard. . Bi Bl oh setacteint sty ate i ie ant ee 392 rae guards not used by others. ......... 0.0. c ee eee eee eee ee 898 “ duty to@uarda 22 o5us.ceaees a eae eceea eV ehees GPa Pe ieeae beuees B98 ee duty to guard « fis een bOasy ow ckataw@ecseas speesa year: B04 Removal of, by foreman... .. 0... 2.0.0. ce cece eee eee eee ee ee ee BOB Rollers unguarded . 2.0.0... 0. cc ce ec cece teen eee eee ee BOB HIGHWAYS: Highways’ ess. pangs sdeoeaerenes 1 ewearcuee kG ee eee taeeea ee OOF Abulting owner's. 4:a2 cas uneew ec yee ees ears See os Bee ee eee nee OOF = owner, damages to. . 0.0... ce eee tp tag pete teen eee ee eee ee 896 Owner: Bible sn.c cia oe aie ahr abaaee. pUudas mwah eb aede as cur eea GOOe Bridge unguarded... oo ec keanheaa eek ke eae alas Caer nn aie ae een ae, BOD Collapse of structure over 2.00020. ee ce cee ee ee ee eee. 896 cc Commissioners, negligence, allegation... ...... 0.0.00 .0 0000 cece ee eee. 894 Commissioners, control of... 20.0 eee ee ee 895 Detect; city’ Sia bility su. as ioe waigats a deheewe eedieies ewes mens ee neces eeaees BOT eRe th aia 5 alban sa daenedliewds oemacae ba ae wees area ak SRN P eee OE Defective condition. ... 0.0... ccc cece ee eee ce nee eect e teense ee ee B95 Dieleet; Wapeutiom oss persons ence sss See foes owl da Gas Sean s vatawate iene EO “ce WNSPCCHON 2 casi qis noedps oH A eee ee aE Ries Kae ae Laeegeaa Sie O96 ME SINSPOCHON y «xa ea ac, ddalenarae ed Ralgad RAO 4 ORee Raw Sa Se ane inane B96 Guards failure to! sys. Agaanuieids Ea pawn toas-ct cose ohne iu eeinieders peee BOB Guard, failure to. . Pg eer reenter ere erence see, BOF Notices of claims, 273 9 stata tee cmmig ne ee tea wade pea eee se ees ease BOG Nuisance, presumption... . 02.6002 600 e eee e cece cece ee see, 894 Nuisance, when engine not.... 2.2.2.2... cece e ee ee ee. 895 Obstruction, warning. .. 0.2.20... 6. eee cece cg ee ee eves B05 Obstruction, warning... 2.2... eee cece ee cee. 396 Oumer, latid under highways e004ss20s-0g us dedgen ee sxadeagugies vrascccize BOR Pedestrian, failure to look . . Ree ecto eee CO nd eee 396 Pedestrian, blastesiie saa: sense aaa vs aioe ng aan peak yeas ev wee yaad gd Aldactone 397 ReRsOne Oly SGewas oc gcvagee ies snag seccdun mana beac iannssideumee GUE INDEX HIGHWAYS—Continued TRI ee Fe eed Sata ees actos lee tacies eed “of the road... 8 sof the TOA’ sa is,ncd-s anes aevema vied ia deed Lo waeely Wlaes aiv'e actus A PP) OE AMS MO aps oats © asec ceabec io ataardro ak anon a Maes cared bavlacacieareshin one are SNe Trolley pole near curb... .. 0.0... ccc cee eet ne ce te ee en eee anne ee Use of illegal, Spectatots oss:gasuse vars anew seme anaaas te miane ease cion anes om Wrong :side Of streetigenwai cow ones shsorehiwaias aene saw ente Te AGG aN ET RTE Vehicles passing. . .. Village not am insurer .... 1.0... cece ce ce eee ne ne ee tent ee ne nees HOISTING: OV AtOny (ca, ocinic alee Saeed Daisy ale hese denen eee aciadt dase Satan donna dered HORSE: MUTI CHG asec carci acacia. cate hands ea lel Aerated ane ee da oat Meee Horse, runaway, collision... . Vicious, Kniowledge Of ix. <2 8 oy2:0 sae deers coe bs Aaa e Se ROE ee ees HOTEL: Passa pe-Way iil: -5 cure) ae ade eae new as aSey pOME eee Pekweeauida ceaedis HUSBAND AND WIFE: Wife, death of, no issue . Wife, contributory cenlteenen sate sciiiaisesae awed ce tiugugharniwwm wraps orem awmmewad wanwne AZZ ORE Sumy OC 25 ny teach set ee ata els vege pie eral URRRUMIELE Hite eee Mae ge eee EM WHIVED : saGcis is dnbwlesnn a kee Se Se eee w Oe So seeneetee ae 423 682 INDEX MACHINERY—Continued "PAGE Gusrding is oh: sega ine ged RORY OW ENE Fae a EO Ral Elginne naar teaie ee Guarding 6s: 54 is Skew us Odie RE ASY Se Bad eon eo ends paeleee a gaaaeer 423 Gardin Bi. s is Advance een eilea see ad ea Sele ee ae BA aR eS oe pen eae AZO Operation: Of ..ie5. cage ed toute ee ee weet abe ~eea@eadss Heder ae 22 Operation Of vac sg See een ge hc eaeuaeiliere EReesedine Goats vs 425 Inspections, Of eiosisieu shaw tw ed ee a4 4A Waa Seda Gu beh Geous Sede ce wy B24 Installation: Of; joint eanenwede nen dane seuncnen ae sons ouateeeie bees 2D Negligence, question for jury. 0.0.0.0 000. ee eee 424 BOG EMS! avid a. dee deatnetaapar ced a Wind eI GRAMS BAG Mei GRA ee eOS oS ee So & een ADA: Permanent structure.... 0 000. e ce ee teen ee eee 424 ROP ALES 5 carat e-cies eisinastuiiett teenth ue Gates Wank aeiet on ween ee la eaend: uted Oy Repairer, co-employee. ..... 0.20000 eee te ce ee eres. 422 RSPOOUs tetye aceasta eee Sele NS eget eel torn keh deans 6 Clea AO Risk, Hot Obvi0us, 22 4 scy-ceeieeeesed oe walbawl obs e A viauecMs beanies haw ae oe 422 NOt, ODVIOUS: > Ws ¢eusceungs VeLd py ak) eke ee Value one aa tee due waaw AQ SSSUMEMS c.-c ap ccsly wanes wala da MLR A etna dade ge mbbdieaee 4O3 SSSUMED onto See ea Rel ba emis lan aed Aone SO SE Cee Rad egg oe ADS O° SOBBUMER S21 Br i isiiim Ada taeadiwadens dk Se ea Rake ase eoeiabaoe rata e ADS Recovery, basigiof io. .¢-04 ace wpneddus Peenda cao aliggas Huwoaae Rawle vedas 408 Dalby: Of 4p sinied | Maric Sach g ae BAGS OA UR eRe S Ga cy danse Sew e espanol Pes DS Dlarting liso aide 22 de hea te aalaadaGuaeeeee Sueew ee gene tee nee sea a ADS MANUFACTURER: Liable, purchaser... 2.202. e cece seen te eeeeeccc ce, 425 Negligence of purchaser. 2.2... 000.20 eee eee eee eee, 425 Negligence, construction. 2.2.0... 00.00 o oe eee eee ec cece eee. 425 MASTER AND SERVANT: Acts of employee ne Hid Sok Geet heathen Weer ease R CeCe RON premaeeeae MEO Co-employees vs. wc ig ns pugnewsusenayes ge Seeeeued tide daiesenanvuee a 46 Danger, knowledge of... . 2.2... ce cece cece et, 427 Defect, not apparent... 2... e cece eee, 426 Defect, promise to remedy... 22... cece cece cece eee, 426 Duty, PECEUMIPUON ++ neasas ty va vwiniadaeusneea ea gmew keds few ee saivvounse SOF Hlevator, Mise Of os. ceasuin gs ne Cael? wander Ina Gabe wow few So Sewederaces Base 427 PemipalopiMienty SCOMR OF esis iw'eips wa arated $a os cone lacs sions gemini ven Beeacs, bacteeneeone aa Gees tenuous ee aaa 4 LO EUILES? dots neh dds arian lth aeney neh aaron phn si acest alte on bud naan sear tebtn feoesdes 5 eae a cp aoe en aie dete ee eae) oe chem oa g SS MSUCHING Yaz ceiee wen devas see bee Satie aes Babee ae ATE o © VISHEMING is0-2 tote ec ar 8 duane advee Wow lodurseuyad ag babes wweneaen AID . * NIStENIN Gc: tee snce cs ghia Pade ase Wy DL RNa GR Cae aene ALD fe NISEDING. §cxhak dashes beaWoduen dn he eAakueeesen 4 4ueiom wee AED a SC MSTENING: sided ndedson added de Ghat mecha aed da sone mae dowey ANd ss PP MSUOMAN G52 5 sieht cate Ge wh pes Goes Ba Ay Sacral ae hard a Wate cadena lal SAE Methods of operation. 2.2.2... ce eee eee, 44 Methods Of Operation ¢ aac essay neewse eva waeaee ere eaves ceeees Ringe ames AVS Noise Of trains: < ow yen sess x wee ex eke Be eee eee Sree See case ees 48 Pass; evidence Of. sucsaeay ¥ 84% ce08e$ eds Bead ova Ge eds So oeeumduavnanss AT4 Risk, assumption of. . 22.20.6200 eect eee te eee ee ATVB! eee traiisea ce 25s ade Sere ae ae SONS VLAN DP aes Pa Bane same a adann Jd MO DGC A PAINS, gos iG bak ea ie dele ho ed eagle aalew da RA Waa pe enee at emaaueeeunns AE SIMMAlS. 2 Sakae cele d aeons eles ae athe tees ieee nue etee eGase aeawae en ATO DIRT ANSS gay eae Raed Aus eed OD BAe oh ee hd OSS Reyes eens 416 Speed Ordinances on oes ysigdedswws ca wags Heeb nam ne mend sek sae geme erage ALO Speed sec Wn xaceneeawvom ssa eabey wn es aaron ys aver aaameentey-ors wees 476 Street crossings «ii. eanes dowd evens Bias ty de eeen oe Shae eee! taste eae azam Ate Trespasser, passing around train. ...... 200.0 ce ee ee ANB Trespasser, passing around train. ...... 0.20.2 eee 476 View ODStriicted, vise .4 cae Ged Bing dla ase se Agawuaee panes pA meecanenenes AO Warning? Of trains occ. irs vooeianingaitmees oe ene aves Bate ene ee peace ones AIS iG WOE ATHINS ya eitre Seno RIES ao bem ad ead a Aen mheR nes weds ea ATS 1 COR TAIMNS 72a eine ws bueGn em Meee mae a dc Sep ARRON EAS ye meeeae ACO > COP tMTaINS: cence ues eves oe eee t Reds Sa menedmes vy ae eens AVG CO OF EFAINS 24c.0cn8 sey aes BAG 4 Os eae Hees Sees Fee Eo Read ae ewe ce 4768 700 INDEX RAILROAD LAW: Cary defective assed sis cays ie eae sone ass esc a Es Cattle ouardsiag. nih tetnce uit acta eri eee Ae nee et eee sae Fellowiemployeesss vig ne 25-08e ec gd oe ae Sa Soa hs BS RS Daability: un déts:22 ocean awinials wales Gogadewa% anita sae dead koe een Pleading, statute unnecessary . 0.0... 2 ce et eee eee . 478 Section 42 construed. ... Vie) PRINCI al cece cers tes caccloeeat Atteah td oe tend enite Bue eeu Ratt al Occ oS “ “ “ce REAL PROPERTY: Meiese tin fenced Vat aeaichadh ted iie oJ) a eh 3s orld 18 eR Sole ae Invitation to enter upon. ... 2... ee ee ten eens . 478 Unfenced lot. . . RECEIVER: Liability, sale of road . RELEASE: Bifeet: of relief from. c2ccce gene cacana vd wii sae aug PagRak RL esd e menses Rey FEXCCULION Ol jie: Sno3 a8 op jooh s ea ers dan REST aes wa ere a a ade Fraud, obtaining by... teebeebiey xyaw eRe exe aa. v4 sme ae aKa YER et eR eR ES ws ©? *ROBEAINING: Dyce. 2.5 cepcceteye arate ep Gut Sth sedi eee a i rates cadet eo a ates = OD tHIMOG DY acs vue a wuaues cg re Sealy eae eee de ae a ns REPAIRS: AtterMecidentts. is ishars ans SESS eed wna eee eye cela al Nenana ts Min ates ay oleae . 479 sh accident. .... OS AOCIGON Ge Genoese OTe ay Ou earn ener ahaa dated Wate otal ned ms Mechanic or engineer .. Promise to make, risk. . . es Bice CHES UAPUBNR SR fateh a SeSiin Be arhcd defend Masa eas. Préstmpilonas. sca 68 Waele tae anih-es we peo eaw ae rina dewen ek eaaeeas RES ADJUDICATA: MeN Be etoeoy tp hte eh cr coaaavo at ove Aces tea enc Seca yee ta tad aie Rarer ood ooh IN PUIG pall 5 ty ds escapee cerca esc eee eee ea erica os aoa eats Anan PENG PA saa os ee acca Oe aya wey caylee ed elke eat 8 alent an eaarae & PTINCIPAl Fars ks, Ses ea Lia katate egidias Rian hata, Deas and aa Ree ACCICEN tS 7nd aA od AA Nee ear ates e ied ee deh Sen ae oe . 479 .. 479 . 479 LCCICLEN be. Geen sar create alates sauet a haatatad needle denen SD arent oh en Poe PAGE 478 477 477 477 477 477 477 477 478 478 478 . 478 478 478 478 478 479 479 479 479 479 . 479 479 479 INDEX 701 REVERSAL: PAGE As to several defendants. ......... cc ccccecccccecccccecucccecceceeecese ++ 480 RES GEST. Declarations as to danger. .. 2.2.2... cece cece ecceseaeen er cecescenencess 480 RES IPSA LOQUITUR: Res 1psa-LOQUiGUR yinys pica ts Posed EoGs wei G ASTON da dalek Dol ee ae ASE Burden of proof, plaintiff... 00.0.0... ce cece eee ence teen eee ee es 482 ri OS SERS SOLANGE os 5.2 ics Wind cheba tan DRO Re Bal edge ds ene cane 482 i Be SSS SPLICE 2 Sc) ise Pa DAtra ttn aladee pave Jae awe aes aan eats. ARAL a we OSE~ “Gelendant's saccnecic sy pe accmreatg usr ewes cane oer iaeeacs 480 Care, prestimptiony... 2 ogc 2 eevee as dete agee rad pee Shae ceca tan cemesa te 488 Defendant, explanation. .......0...0 000000 ccc cece eee een e ee eee. 481 S WADI Yeats ya as wey tea de hese ad ge & ieee ee. eeed agian oe nanei eters ye 480 . preponderance of evidence... .. 2.0.0.0... cece eee ee ee ee 481 Derailmentof Cai. i5 cou uaa twsed ness Ge ed se aeresoeteeateedaevemese se 481 Pall uinber ss & ga c S tang devo smh oe ware d tence gh Bley nee ae a ede AL Negligence inferred, accident... 00.00.0000 00 ccc cc cece ec ceseceuencen sess 482 Plaintiff to prove negligence... 06... cece cette eee eee ee 481 “proof, particular defect... 2.2... cece eee ee ee 481 «contributory negligence... 2.0... cee eee ee ee 481 Rule, applicable. ... 00... ct eee ee ee es 486 © Sapplicables ick cyt Sei pseen ee ee 2 A ae de ok ean eee ea ee 280) & “gpplicablés.20: 2 cs.cdremanda aucees ange ye dang aos A ASE Ee ase BOO 4 -SleVAtOI ys. guia ive ohne Me ttes So any GUS Pam nad s Leeda ca cagaen AGL M” ~ elevators © iu newadscebtauad ates AYR ie ge erhe ee earineteercgeaoe 488 SLIPPING HS ss Sensi r Hes Sab Say Peer Seee Reva age an eile SOU $ flooding of loft: oo =:ence dee seems ata a eeerae heer esw ayaa eran ve naoe- 480 C0 Wighway'asc i. kdes ike saree aN de aeeaierseterereedsces: SOL © WOISHN PG fo) pss jacecnea da dota read Maka dase ves ee seee sane s BSL MO APERHIE oad He ethos men aout ee naan E ees Daeceeh eee tpn pea ee 482 © falling pole pseu hasan via she iene panel neue eh acuce pane anna s 2 ABS > fall-of plassi ion oa seaw aaah seopigu tis ckcder ancien eeu caanaed eae 483 “street railroad... 0.0... ce ec ete tte e eet eee e ee en ee 483 . 482 483 482 482 482 46 “master and servant... 0.0.0.0. ccc ccc b teen te eee ee erences falling roof. 2... ee nn nee en een ene ene Falling SPN sine ve-ws oe Genie ee oa done cedanl 2s er aKa ae eR aE BwEER aN A “falling merchandise... ©... 0.00... 0 ce eee cee ee tee tee teens “ gtarting machine ... 0... 0.00 eee eee et et tee ee 702 INDEX RES IPSA LOQUITUR—Continued PAGE Rule, train switching... 002.2220. ce ete eee es 483 “manner of accident, test... 0.0.0.0... 0 cece eee ee ee ee 482 “not applicable, elevator. 2... 2.0.6... cece ee eee ene es 480 ee “Ot Applicable yg As sense ce teas we addhdad MEER He Raed rennee eo 481 © spot -applCable sii ces gavawene ne sey ae eae ee ees eae esoeeeeeeees 488 not applicable .<: gaccas dee oeeiee dese eeceei ea eeebeswese oeeens een 483 master and servant... 2.2... 000.0 ccc cece cece cette eee ee teens. 482 employer and employee ..... 0.0.0.0... 000. e cece eee eee eee es 482 slipping: on floor. .2c.2cc8s405 Heee et arpuxingpaderae aan mamesews op 480! defendant not negligent.... 0 0... ec ee ee ee ee 488 Res ipsa loquitur, defect existing... 0 0.0.6. ee ce te eee 482 ee te & rebuttal, plammtiffis <4 coe 45a sey vds aw See eae 2Oe Eee a celéctricshock’s gs soaeupeey eer ae eaeeas see ese er aaa eew 488 rs “fall of window. .... 0.0.0.0 0 te eee eee 484 Ue “unexplained accident. .. 2.2.0... 00. eee ee 488 prima facie proof, negligence... ........................ 480: RE-OPENING CASE: Motion for verdicts. cacaecesaciacness Rady eeh@asaoe eed se eae erweea weg. 484 RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR: Respondeat superior: 6... 0... ccc ce te eet te tenn eee eens 484 Employee, control of... 00... cc tect teen eee es 484 Municipal and governmental corporations... ..................0.--00..0... 484 Tenant in building... 1.0.0... 0 2c cece ce eee 484 RISK: Assumption (OF 54.24.0004 peda eb a OS Beh Geeky AG ee ies ewe eo aooe a eee 488 AOI sissies a eee ee Bae AGG wie jue awa own. aa oad Shanon ware ASS BIGOT CBO casi ica 3 ack delves arsine A wale Gas be Rats ed na PRO Re ieee ale aaa AO Blasting &. dwn wea ana a4 ha omg aeaed REAR choy eel dee Meas pees 488 Brakemany 3.04 0is4, peat geids cea hts jp REAR aa Te eee gles a beeen ones 486 CHATILY AG accion ien Ae eg ae Bai eek beeen en sa beeceade Sena RO Common 18 Wis.6 5 cdeecacs SoGas teste ee ak eae pa awe ea ey Ook a ae 400 Common: AW shu. Sais Snot bin elaser secon Glatd give egal ay Ka oan beaeh vies ay ASO? Comtined: U80 ssscwatiecin sabe dace esa eebe soauad evaM ch eeMens | Kosendaneen 489 Contract, matter Of... cc cece cece cee cee cee te ee een este nn esses, 486 eu Mather Of nse eke ve on Das ae aweucde a Ati woemN gee tedd wakea ya eda AOE us MACEDO oso wae pha Ra aN RAG os sen Ses Pale Wee AOD INDEX 703 RISK—Continued PAGE Contract, matter of... 000. e cece eee cece cece eseencnancreeernes 492 Matter. Obese. cveceieysGueuadae hd Agel eaedan daeh Van ide an awe 402: Contractors, negligence. .......... 00 cece cece cence cece eee ee ese eeen ee es 488 CPORSIN GE BHCC 3.25255, 4s ed dis oeliand padaee Dials Ba au wien GAS boa eae aerate 490 DDOCCAROU acca Attsay esc Norv tinica das Sr ae dae ee avs gba een oe aot Ree alas AST Dangers, WMddeny-a 3 veces oe ow as goats Guox Wes ang Save aoe RGU eR Sarees 486 NTOWDG "cs eens Hose ais Gas Shweta Ad a Wen RE Se RRS Se Adon ASO) Re! © thas 25 cas xe a pau Mebhnch nds einn celuaed gnen deen Aeaeecuameala uh AOU “ KNOW: ashe we Skee ha po aoe A ehh eee Quem ene eaedeen 490 IMG Wils evs iy 2dde ee ac 3 Oe Pec ne Ade Sgw rene a eee sare ee eae, 409) FER DIOV ES 5c: oe phn ore of? bee ene eg. eae aes ei eae eae ASO HM plO Vee sees: cerns eee ences Wea b Peaee SET 2 LEAN Dackeee eaay dene ore eee 48D MA PLO YC caret ences. rig tess eee Re es Nosece a a 3 Peele ao age es bs et tay, ae ASO Expert knowledge... 0.0.00. ec teen eee eee 485 Egress from property... 22.2.6. ee 485 Employers’ liability act... 20.0. 0 cee e e 485 ACU no: ante Se dete tine 6 ASG Ee ane Peat edesetengese ASD ROU iret) HE AE BARE AOA nd PO TE tee Mae ea aw eee ASO - Be UNC ctor be ret Pattee cele creat eos i wee SA ee ann oleae dhatemeatas AO i HES (OG bu ecoae gh Gi gece aah Weald Sita dain ewe Ww Saahhen worn ee eis ASO! es iS WCtin cane ead se aa ae aks Yoke ecupene ess seepeenesevee 490 POOR Sy ssi S255 PEARSE Boake Peds wes eb Ke Geode oan ees AOL Fellow S@rvanits4 2. daciay se hese da alee naceeSaeohale sha ng adhe sede baadwaeeenecna 491 Foreman’s representative. . 2.0.0... 0.0.0 cee cee ee teen eee ee es 487 Fricidentall: 6 sinccisemndgne wdc ea SR owe bkcpe RW adie ae bee wae ae AOE Labor laws. 236 chet 6a se oad oeandatoh qa cienitedamaetwademi sida dtanng 288 Labot laws. avvetaninatentten vad tiet eee imeem eae se SOL IWIITI CS wicie ser aah oc bal doa ae eeeam aide le ic doh Mee ens tee Re ana oe eee AAO Winey oceanic err pa veep umene Lemire eane aeee wwe) sramauenrde aaa ON Not assumed yc: sched evades cece oe x oe Seats + waa eee es anes ees 488 Not assumed. . 1.2.0... o eee een ee eee ee en ee 402 OBVIOUS ose) Fa Sedona 4 RE grb ad ede awed bb wee ak ons ee ec ABO OBVIOUS 2 5 ahs el yo ees Se eB Re AOL OBWiGUS a... 4.63 Se sede ewesie wha oa he aa eee ones bn eaghdan ABS Ob ViGUss 5 s Gus eu So ae eds ated ade Oe ou RES Ree OE a Ge ee eae ABS OBVIOUS! saccade oa asa caress Wier says Gere a ee ee et pepe aancaae ada AO ODVIOUS: «doce oe atwe ten pipe ee eeanker sO lea eesed Pea wheeaeneeeeueny 490 Obvious; waiver cos nccaues seanaege ss oe as Wa Sw Besa eg ues Sead eden we 492 PAVEMEN E ics hse we Rage eoar ete NAG Stein aad ala edn Ladeeud Malan genoa 491 704 INDEX RISK—Continued PAGE Passenger, railroads 2 youn sy ghassahcee Aw Ray bak eA EEE eS PRES Rew n'y 488 Pleading ae Sag og cape ps eS aaa baa Naw el AON ade Chae eee ees es 489 Promise tovrepaits as 4. cess ackanap ne tdahe ae Se new i aide h ee ewes eeeoavar ages AOL Question for jury... . pa AAS a ores oso Wau Oe RR aeat a eeee chuonta 487 “ LOL [UP Ytes head ohm diam nne Soekawe sedear aha paagas oes eukess 488 “ (FOrjUryy oe 2 aoss5 casino tel anced badads wee atewraonn een ee CHOP JULY. Sc-8 gaya Vaan neealaURbig aIAe PRR Reet cacg dade dy 489 Ree ROR | UR YA yo ete xet- nde ia. ; Seeded ny anand See ale Re eA eg weed becegieepek a een ADO iy fOr UrVAle es necator ele ei pees ve nek eee wen eee oa es AOD Repairs ses feseeee hu hae Re ad AS 8 rah oad LA Oda BEAD suc Ma ees wo ABD Re pans g 25.0 Fs ah ean ee ce PR ROMA OA aS ee ea ey ASO REPRINTS siete ia etek Added ones AAS a Od Rodeo aro aeeeea nea ene waa eee 288 FREDAINB 3cny Gree deed eae AAS Se AD Powe ae aca ee ap et aa een ABE Repalrs.0 vcasamaeiieel cue dp susdebaeies ade adbaseaekn eseeg eades FOF RUNCS Sco) awiswins ss cere enews ehawae en pis deus wewhe sabes erheue deepen ceeeas 2490 Safe appliances): ecsec yee peccew ney sede Mae Se ee ee eae we ae ee ABT Dalebyccnwaie ease adn Oed oo IR Seo ee geo eA Ped dau ie ee ss 489 DaLCU Ye hat nacelle Oerp aia hetapda nye aes vasa teye enact eae mae ahaee a Bin Aaah ane A BO Bakety: sous Vesieasaas ces Adie ais Oh Rae Ao i ens Ah ee ed Pn we tee dee ABO Balety crac. lawnideka hae ya tind Se as Seed asd oh dain en ae yea een aaa 488 Daley aise sated ae NG A ee eed OO lee Ube ieee Go eee oe ede Geen nA SO Sealfold iuncescanes canis lak ce Aue enous veweer aah ae ae ase 400 Selfevidenti.c.5.o)scatavoa dias sees dx Pee ee wee ns Sa ae i ee eh eee AB Simplecnstiumient:.. «oe yises ed ge wea ve oH Sees Veo Bdn daa ebasencamsaxecans ABI DOIVEDU is wiv hora eles Sad cates erent te yee toes AR DORVAN Gs 52ih Gis veins earl eee WG a hy sara unearned Relate tee Bo oe oe oe AOD ROIV Abid 3 care Vian ve lary co vale bier sion auntie SEAS Tae age ban Pewee teat AOE OLVAMb ics yi caces hey ¥ ele cote sh eh aw emai SN SORE We Wel Ga ee teview as ART BwitchMan ve. .aysehies aciewha ee aw ends pened denn ge mag tanya ecaees ASB Tunnel, excavation .. 00.0.0. cee ete cence cree see. 490 MONA Gest xcs nouns, Gartelue santana aty Lava adaln at 2G Crete eaaaabasennn len AO]: AMbesinn: Sovertuirm igs sohin2 asso Ps amie what’ anarn Se foes ceneroerd ead sta ze ion ws 486 Unsatesplace: nis 16 pee cic assum oa es. ce dees Peueeees wae Phaeoeneoeen std O Unsafe: places. acces aed dledeain ga Oda Sissel ee peee soe Mae tesd ean e ABT ‘Vite privieipal. 0 5.tce-iwes 2524 en cists 3 age ae Seed Va eee ROU haw deedenee ae MRS VOlINtary-s:- 3 cine zante Nay ae laed cals vanes Oo Seek aes oe: 489 Voluntary 59x eye's ate ssa a eevee se ane swe meee eede ss bude cea eddeceiviecs 408 Work; cantimuancevol sisi. asta ceee es teen tenes Giiwatdearavatersvenncen BSB INDEX 705 RULES: Absence: fis icc gc wavin diga ghelen aoe none Ga hue tae veto taacaaoknee oe 498 Ad Option iOF. oro. de-sreliee te tne eeea oe ea wha e wie tk eee eae eekee eee 492 7 OES a nog ws fale oietsle euga anus ie ea olen alle tage ia Stat ee an a Oy - Ole epteneg to S Soe oie ate a elas ile eke Seta ees eee ane eee CAG Breaking Off sy se i ge aaah Gay a pa deen ed eo encketens? 2c°49B Burden of proof saith 4 aen gaunt a re tak ah ath don. ean fis aang UREA ace a yee ae Oe Canmien, dummite si Wis: e272 ua ce snaceinnba ia aeeew catia vaawereuared 200 Employees after accident... 00.0.0 occ cc cc cece cece cece ebeceececeec:, 492000000 Expertetestimony’s.g :i:dnsink dete heyy a Wenua ena Sewn SE oa Reese ne 402! Expert testimony. 4s2eas tne he acu 4 ss dedeseniee Si deve hese wBaN wy Lael Le wuiawue's 498) Failure to make 201.1. ccc enna eee en ee es 494 SPopmake:s. ocaieenaicatuve Lae ble Sedna ee sa wane eihads od auawen AOD O34 PROMMAKC ieee c seh date edn Oh So ha GA Mee SS aan ee cst eter, SOD S| POmnia ke: JULY s eel Bk Fa een eg eee y em gemeee Gs ake, Sanday sewn AOS as eo MS” WSK: cave ai seepdinas Make eowbee dyes Veda eataneaa tae on 206 Oe US dite ea ae eae note nai sien Sc weas: § TARE “ f= TUES APS 55; dS Meas Mah tage GGG RAR ae asa SINE A Gh euasan upset LAY BORE ee AE is Be OPS PIS onc tox le deache Raion Use matsernla ie Makpinck BAA Galatea ene alee AOE ss CE “EEO APISME:., sxaae Attias Sa diaealy SRGREROESE GOR 49 en Roar emeeenende ADE i EW SSS TSK < cos i i dupyegaty ba we oa veda HER Sea ARe ae tine Se AOD) MES OKO Ene aay ts betee eee ue need ian waren nents Cur, desta AAs eens AOS. MO Per amie seis oyu vie nee Xd der as Se ets Re Be eee ae eee eee AOE WOPCMAT 26) dec le ae ev ba Sakeu WA OEY) Mesa eae Me eee Buses ere ce ANE Instructions and method of work .. 0... 6... 0c cece ce eee te ee ee ee 492 TnspechiOnee- 2 wgan eee Sa ee SA Ale ean eWay Li Mega eda 400 Knowledge of es .¢ ci uaag ce vesq uae ta Senos: eres teed ensta ented ae AOE Heimapiteel se a cues acu eaeidih Wis tv nesses Sane Ma cere ee seee ieee, AE Machinery, starting: 6.4. .ce¢scnrye ore ered or edgesginageer es deer sewn 408 Making and enforcement of... 2.0.0... 000.00 c0 cscs cece ects er eeeeceesee es 492 MaChiNGry:. ccciccicnace cans gies spe ieee eee nivadaneiim seseceeerss « 497 * Dlachinei: see geiwoson des ssa genescwas chowmladanin ss ca tamken ya sw nines ee AOE WG Ge cit stoabe ue wad acee ied er secmicien REP We Necessity for, JUTY.. 6. scence e nee ce eee ese te ewe cete Mee ee ee ee eee 497 Neceeily fon Mas asco usanguaewere aan eee phe eee eee oe Phe Ee Prernleatiny + cos sacce tay onsiacias sun Ieee endear swim eenewe sy Go's euene os AOS Promulgating . Roepe Aaa Fa a ie ar PP vs 498 IPSec ee acess snes eae ae po Soa ew LR Caen AOR DratnleMig Ladino a eo Ree ee ee 706 INDEX RULES—Continued PAGE Promulgeting . .0.:2c.0c.qeccees sens cecrsweeeusissantewnanes seveea eres SOB Proximate Cause... Wa asiddctoayde yu ew tee Poe. aWaaw news ed eae nos amet ADS Railroad car, movement... ......00000- 0c cece eee ee tte eee cee ee ee 498 Safe: placer to wotksny sixes suscuked a oeas Sede a ae MRT Reese ce nene AND Showing negligence. 2... 2. ee te tte cnet eee ee 496 Suifficieney Of va achisascawe caw abe s 9209) eeeee ee IS Yee cemdderecas es AOE MUG ABT CHES > gc oe cos cassot de din anti bRSe i Garceah- enema aan xetane we AOS ‘Train:-aiid: C08, sca ce o-h8 SEBS Se aw Bag Fa os ew eee ey AOE Unnecessary, when... 0.0. teen eee es 404 Waring. trains .¢° jo\ceateuseceauce aat nn 4G 26 hema dewean Murs anderen) AOE Winch; operation: 5 c2%vex vse eee dea seunhe ania idee an eames Lae AOS SAFETY: Duty, continuous... 2... 2... ee ee een te ents 496 Means, reasonably safe... 2.22... 00h cece en en ee eee 495 ‘Propressol Work 36.9 gj i3aseed ce ese Siege ee ta gAEE WONG Rea aes wees 495 Railroad commissioners... 0.00.0... te eee ee teen eee 496 Safe place toworks na-ssae cr gy uses eon g Wea ee eda adeee avr adecass Ageus 496 SE smOthOdS as %. sewuieeg soak Ao Geen Res GER EOE ey Shwe Hae Saree AOD © “@ppliancesea::. Sed tad Reka enee Hwee dee Ped aa Sane ey ee hee eae en oe ie 49S SAFE PLACE: Sale: places osu F414 ea bag bale ele ke as ba eAN Ae uae wd ede ene eee UL SS PlACO es oa nate ein cote oo esi e inn alee del aon dation ard a esa eee UL 8 PLACE. 5 acon cic gia ditopeeadsrtcckaboreranes Saneecesaee teas BOL PIACE nus i se whee hes bees Aide in eae Are deca eee OOL AE DIBCCl sw the So dot tee eo kaw Be OR LORE Wa ds SUemaeER teen cated cee eee OOL SE, DI ACC i cog on whieh Oa Ak Oe, bee teag Mi Aang wages aioe dia Sauaonyege, F Ra Miekcs et re ees HOOD, PLA CO so erastnaiaeaaesNe anat tag sue aah ws ee data eae gaeohedn eet tune «Natok dc be Oey DIACS bs Gack one de eear eee me pen. dure ween stud dueeoe gen ade de deans caw BOQ place <4 3 feaus bars nikge sere Sie pease ees eyed es Hee BG Coes cole ee O08 DIACE +5 Sindee winder seer etva deed veas ties zane aed ys de vedeae DOB BIRGHes daa etaemena sas area nein eseec ethese arenes mam cs aOe Competent servants, furnishing, ... 2... 0. 212i. sce eee ce sera we dene canes 498 Competent servants, presumption... ........ 066066 c cece lace ence eee AQT (GAT C iee cacy Marea age ioetleince Riana dese Ge PENN GONG elas SO Bab tara tah anban tee OD Contract, 840.0: ice cise wits ne noe coum aodeed mars wgiaabas uve amie ees ADB Details): cocateranace yen see Aen ant dw Cacanneea ee eee ae wa decease age DOS Duty to furnish. jo sv5 +e vuruwee << seaawnaesy xeen seawneauns samen ena BOT INDEX SAFE PLACE—Continued Duty to furnish. ......... BP STO eUMMN Stas tis ea cas ith aa cd ce det Gam eas ove acoaeea eons wig mah sto furnish. ......0.0..0..... to furnish. . “cc Dangerous place, care... 00... ccc eect ne te tenn eeeneees Employee causing danger. . Employers’ act. . . Employee creating place. “cs “cc 7 eM SDIACOlea ic attuns Ge ugateun ae he aaasitomeiacs Alo sRea me enakae AoE 6c bb Failure to furnish. Failure to furnish. ire lepepay abe ion se ters ata derkacp cet a a eect ont a oats eg Fellow servants, care. La Aisles nai) waa GU areata noe foe aoe oor Fall, jury. . ee eae a eae aie) ch ree eases a auiteg ke Wall :supportijis-ddsas Cistiatjeenaannie aa aaa navn taateddaws awn Floor, slippery, risk. . . OW OUI Tic ss Sen ah acco ol ita eure ee a tene eee hae elec bteaggdSione sig aper conc DULY QUESLION TOT sus3-n5-2 x eae cece Re ea OM ele We Sender sate eneen Jury: question forte sas-¢ gue degh es va Meee Ee Riso ees 6 sie anaes Maintenance of... 0.0.0 en nee tn ent ne eens Master’s liability, basis. .. 00.00.00 ec ee ce ee ee eee e tne a Masters SsSUranGe OF wv c.ncsec cane maaan arte Hata ARERR Ree oes Material, sel Ctidtivol: wcoscstigeygiaacageeunes raed aameaaaam pay umamawedeys Meaning of » zeacnand deus tums ones ae eenes oe eeebabuamey Sense enon Ga kau Platform . . RE ORISOS sisse seg Nees Baca eae ae aS i Ea eae Sip hs at sb Risk . Barletta a haale ede cael a tai eset cla aad asec ateactale Sea ft old scsi eci.tei shes ages an, acer ind ope eee Sa es ae maw Sie een Rebs AO UUURTA SE 0 8 pshecoerta tanta clog to ceenwceta late ban ortatecmme he ceca an oecrany eeu Bs POTN crocs Oates eerie wage a er tN Coe eR fa Atte Gavi Coen eeociaeue a bambi hccen OPIUM TSN ocx ek Bo carpe aoe eal ume eran area imiyetnt a (5 Ge ch 8 to furnish . I ech ant ea eR GOUPUTTUSH corey fe ioa can ota esata AS haganhatakedtecand nigh eeieGa ak eee incidental to. 0.0.00. eee ee eee LACRS 1 & contribtitory negligence: 4.45 ose at Sey Ss States cee se uene os s contributory: negligence: 2s; .ohne7 bee ues sei eelanek Maui saee Plans ofconstructions: 22:2 550, ou bits age aon Se odd do eee Ae as ae dae’ Previoussaceidents: 840.2. 3243 i. paadod pla cow nea teas ede tas ah caaShs ae: Ses ao cae ea ca ds bc ene 0 Secu Sa Sloping way ... or ' 2gs Street Gpenme 22725504 eda Gace Gime ns oh OSs She edd Sh eg gas BRE SIGNS: Corporations, IMSIPMIA. $< 3. se i008 jou Se oe sien See ee ca Re ak oe Stee sass 2s O10 “© N ovadmittance” acc2 bocuuisatad oe aud gee ee fate le oe wk oh Sa SO) ggee g SIGNALS: Spell ine a a eeacas neers ae saa ce eres daw aeeiocce pula ness SEL INDEX SIGNALS—Continued Confusionicals ahs, dt bt ce ARO aus, ners. Sea fhe . dil Failure to obey. ...................... PS © AO ODO 3 sheaves d tcl ie ieee tna alee dS Aik SG al tink eh aes “ “ “ce Moreman: and JUrY: yore hes Sa dhe k Bw lads pocn ae bene dan rca snes Intervening acts... 2.2.2... ete ce cece ee ence eee . 510 Negative evidence ...................... Negative evidence! j:).13 c0chaasscasenuie even suave Guba toeese eee wee eels (eit Met 5 ce ohn 2 ancl ba delay oes segs ay Be eed se alte conductor and brakeman.... 2.2.0... 00 eee ee ee ef Jocation of signales soj3 5.6 22555 SAS aed ots Sk She aE asa oe Street railroad, signals... 2.2.0... 0 o.oo cece cece ccc ce cece ee eeeeee. Superintendent, negligence. ... 2.200.000 ee eee Supermtendent:..<.3 ci Ans fun. csnk anee nd see dined Ga 26a Tee en EA . oll a“ Train, moving by. ......... Unexpected, obeying... 2.002000 00 ecco ee ccc cc cece eee eeeeeteeeeeees SIMPLE INSTRUMENTS: Injury resulting ATONE 1. os. 34025 24 Sa heed de Pade RO aa Pe aha SPECTATOR: At fair. ........ injured mhighway ss: ccc0s8 ates ose diz Bane ped ead USERS sep teen SPECULATION: Explosion of dynamite .. 2.22.2... 02. ccc eee cece ee teen eee ens SPEED: ACcident, TesultiOf:.3 03 en ener daa We Sats See eee Rene Eel ee seee Crossing, agreement... . esc s aihe GasiTaehs Seki e acest dana at eel ctaNy beget oh Daniage explanation.) stcs-.etadlss wide ad dds asses a auveb tet tae Mw Boeke Demands of the public ....... 2.0.0... eee ee ee eee ee . 513 Distance car ran. ........ to give. sieeiass ets Seger haat Rtas aie cat a tek ced ces MOO BVO ok cis ih Sr ae) ee ca hese Rb creel oe IONS 3s ieee nara ada, MO PIV Ga ecient ark cena Seco ty Se ae we eta caer ae Os alts 711 PAGE 512 511 512 511 512 512 512 511 510 512 511 511 511 511 512 512 511 512 - 513 512 513 513 513 513 514 513 514 712 INDEX SPEED—Continued PAGE Expert testimony... 0.2.00. cece cece cece cece ce vette este tetneeee reece es B18 Pats, 10h ConchMONs: «anise icses. ga seus akon peadeswde Romer sae eteots ee Hearing i occsie Boies ene Sas Guise: fog e ha SEAN OE eS 44 eae eee ee setws OLE Misealculation as to... 0.00. etter ete ee eee 514 Neéplicences ico: s neiegcuk aa tein ade tenets weep dewey Wee pena aera Old ‘Presumptionssssp fiasco etd VCR Gea Baas weer a Bee ee OME Rate Obs caics vata baa harehe Ua ae i oR eae emeteend exe Gs OLA Reduction of, jUPY: 24> 2vcnaniuwii wes ease esacecanen vies daa eee sy O18 Street car at cUrVe. 60006. e ee eee O13 Question {OF Jury: eas .cdu anaes pawn gohang nas ene Pen eas OIF STAIRWAY: Haale: tO Ligh Gics: gases ohana ah eas Ska Megalen mean dehs catered Zee DI Landlord’s duty a8 to... 60.0 eect tne tote tere cece es O14 Notice of condition. 20.0.0. cee tect eee tere e ence 614 Public, duty of SHOTS Gis sae a CAME onan Soa BERR ode deaten OMe ‘STATE: Lands, structures causing injury... 6... 6... eee eee eet ee ee O15 Liability, employees state hospital... 0 0.0... eee eee ee OLB STATUTE: Common law extension... 0... 0.6... cece ee ett teeter eee OLS And: Comimon JAW.sg: 2.4.06 cacx sees ae R ALI MeLEWE L DIRE eae h Aenea OLG And! common law sc.0spsecde aaamgetedwresen da apnea ar seco wage wa O16 Contractor complying with .. 0.0.0.0 0. 000000 cee cee eee ee ee. BIB PEI GUE cer dee eee nS 5 TRAM EA RDIAG A Bad veress Saanerateentied Ole Foreign construction. . . . ue Saha Ge cat Meet eee ates out Menara deta eine a eae LD Tiabor la we pleadin®s cacy acs seen eed awhce-eek a eg ee ees Gees yeep eases OID Meaning, words, eG... s5 245 <4 a4ese8 ps ehGy wa 34 eo bee beds Syed gia oes BIB ise een ath co oe ano ere: Lagcnha lace ecendly Plaintiff, statute or common law, election. .......................0..0..... 516 Railroad crossing, assumption... 0.2.0.0... 00.0002 e eee. O15 Violation of, negligence... 0... ce ete eee eee ee B15 “ce “ DORIC. oc wae gn nods weiuecasimoreweas epteeriees geswng sy OLE c ie MCSIGENCE see eritct mmc meee ee eee See ae Se LG STEAM BOILER: Defective construction .. 2.0.00... ccc cc eect nec e ence ceee wae 516 INDEX 713 STREETS: PAGE Abutting property, obstruction. ........0 00.000 cc cece eevee even deeeueee es B17 Danger, apprehended .. ........ ccc ccc cece cette teeter sete eeeeceee HIT Danger, Woh BOVOUs scares caren bag nose edn see ns ea aoe eens Le Defective places es 2.0... ce pace anne aelsewelswe ne erauesameawnameewe OLE Intersection! Of a jade nace dues eng eliacs dontins pa cede cateans hea ea Sages OLF Looking on crossing. ..... 0.0.0... ce ete eter ee ees SLT Narrow, motorman’s duty ...0..00.0 00.0 ccc cece cee tet e ee ee eee. SIT Obstriletions ny esis apie ann veg Std aa hes kee Dan Tes Cue eens OLY ATgs> ghakvid ire ache adcqh oe hs veae amen a hl aie Wen arte tate wadates cot wh DE Passing velitcless.33.iscd.¢ sans ou idan aw ahgicn uh ie demaleaweelou ne nae c ew DLT Railroad tracks im i... :0cc0. cee eis stewaee ewes seam acmeeruver avaxdewe es DLT Railroad, reasonable use of... 20.00.00 cc ce eee teense. 518 REPaINS 10% 3 co ais casa ae nae eo aia iglan ol uae eehaa cael eee HOLE: Eravel-On, JUdi¢ial Notes, « eiesdees Sess weddaeweue ewes cones eoeanseoereese OLE ce “ Trolley pole, collision i324 acs cncue goee new ag hiane lay eee ¥eMeseseag veneey O17 Water, surface flow .. 0.0.0.0... cee cece eect eet e pect en eetene OT STREET RAILROAD: Accident: JUTYS..c02 au cosgn addon an oS EES Foe ee RE ee es See iy ee we Oe Bicycle rider, looking... . 2.0... 00. eee eee ee OLY Bieycle rider, LOOKING ésisccc ce es Ge nas eased a se A Ses Hee be ware ee see OLD Car, approaching curve. ........ 0.00 0c cc ceceecceeteteteestveeeeeeeeees 521 Cars, construction Of;.. «2. 0c.e0:. si euaeersde te teee pea taee et ewenen O21 Cars, TUDHING Of. 6 x cce55 vice Woe ee Sh eE OP See EY we ea Pome seed O22 Care, charge as tO. 5.5% ye tees cha anes + ised batemeek AY Mee weae ny sae ee O20 Care; highest degree «ei. o.c8s sean esd eag OueR newts eee stan ce dere eee eens O18 Child, tressing witeel, c.ci.acedadcnv cin sca daweeeertegianteeweseereiney Dee Collision; rear ends y asses «hes ache Meare be te who ee ie oP ea ern ae: Oe a different roads. . 2... 0.6.0.0 cece ce cee ee eee cece eee en ee ss O25 ie Speed ee ioue ag Aue eA eee Pe gad ted hea eee me Oe Vehicle exwerne tease ee wh Baew dle enka Mada RR en aes deena LO vehicléiss aii cee eta dicnetcocau darks etders Menthe eves? O24 MHI CLEL cerrado ke eee es aes as a REI et D OL Ci yale CaS aie cheese Shabby AU eee aca cae 523 ‘Crossing tracks cs gis pve echo sAe Ghee ewe Ae dna eae oehgete aes DAO Me bra GS: aaa tis ssid eee uiula due ee AMARA eee ee Kee pr ae arn 020 TO PPR OlESs gees Sadie das ahs CRY BORIS 4 4 WE BORER ae ee eeagi apa eee Del 714 INDEX STREET RAILROAD—Continued “tracks. tracks. “ tracks. Conductor Grossi ws as sacs anna Shae ik ep ad Wade wee Ge Sew oH ees een . §22 Decedent, looking . . Driver of vehicle, seeing car... ....... 6.0 gee te eee nee eens Duty as to passengers... 2.00... tee teen eee .. 518 .. 520 . 618 Fenders on cars... Fire insurance patrol... .................. Intersection of streets, rights... ........... ue “ “cr ‘cc “a “ “ ce “he “ “ “ce “e Motorman, discharge of .. 0.0... 0.2. eee teen e ne Passenger, alighting. alighting alighting. alighting. Passengers alighting... 6.0... nee ee teens Passengers alighting . . . Aisa di We kee uanhant ba we anes Raiaed Passenger, boarding car... 20.0... nnn eee ee st risk ......... zs on platform. ... Pavyertient; Tepalts : ai-o2 ud we tens eve wae ee oe tees Bea on so oc 6c “i Pedestrian and car Crossing ... 0.0.0... oc cece cee e ee neces i and car crossing ............. TIPS 3s Deus ce eee den Te ete ed . §21 ic SUCCE: vs vee gece ee re gane ns SAAcee ee oie 7 Qe Ree RE VaE Peale eds Looking and listening .... 0.2000. te cnet eae Wsten ing ec asic sas Awe SE SA Aes ge mae ee Histo bing’ 55, caceeeeeus epee ae Seana ae cea. Seeing Plat. 3) ac cdma dadrnay av aus Agee on aman Wark dan acdmeans CAPO Of. os coed dco aees eae nes eee deee hae Ne ee oe ei ees CATE. OF 65 y3.h ue dis Se BSS OA Re HOS ye Cee eee CALE: OL ores tig aia eee AEWA CARATS VR ES sa BLIGHTINGS ais yack Goi esewtuck eb ee gue eb Ge ede dee aed Madeeace cals BlIGh ting: ay aside ae Ranier ee a eek etna Ramee Lace won -anmeawee right of way . . Teche cesses cod AN ae ht oa righb.of Way ves. sunacdakeial ous Chae hw e Renae hada ae ads TIghtOf Way ais a sath yada sass CAIN toons aes ba gas PAGE .. 522 .. 528 . 524 520 520 520 518 522 519 521 521 521 525 518 520 ... 628 523 .. 520 .. 522 .. 522 . 523 523 524 524 . 625 524 .. 520 . 520 521 522 . 523 . 624 . 518 . 523 INDEX 715 STREET RAILROAD—Continued PAGE Pedestrian looking... 000... ooo eee ce cece cee cece ce ceeeeeeeeeenenes 519, ‘i CATE TEQUIPEC «5 5 cig samara isa ded os 4h dye paceaeen Salat yen seth cOe8 " CALE TEQUITED: by dec cadens e acd aea era biaktserancane eae gues O24 . and motorman, care........ 000.000.0000 cece ee cv ve eeeeveeess BID - street intersection... 0... 600000 eee cee ee ee ee eee. 518 Risk, conductor, motorman... 0.0.0... 0000 cece eee eee ee cess eeev ee 518 Rules, violation of... 000.0 occ e eee teeter ee eee. BI Safe place, alighting... 22.00 e cece eevee cesses 824 Speed, unlawful. 2000... cece eee eee tree eeevenereees B19 Starting trains, superintendents... .. 20.0000. ccc cece ce eee cece ee eet. BIO Sudden stopping car. 2.0.6... cece eee cece ee eee se eeee ee BIO CBT oe sais sn tele iota hinah is lela alee gata adams @ away on ain gat aay VOLE CAL Sc cv eis vas eae geek a eeEs MERA REO HE Ee BEER neuer waa D2 CAP ovata gintan eee a PRE s Manabe bays Mel due Sane od Shite me ane DLO Gl slatas ahicoa nahin cue eis Won gresie: ose cara Iai a RS UCBTnigan si) Sent eeoraad es dete aie on aeea te A aR Mine n bateatenian DOS BEATING CAR e502 es ani aan age akan tana dete on dene noe 24g oecee meray DLO " HT CME aaes baie SS ts Ses ekg Nha bee eanlieaaaeren serdar Jusalpe " es CAL CROSSING 32. Seccniey aWA Ss anag Shee yea Gna Eevee DOE Dele PEATE an cu Sec wa-ayyaasee cee a lyse stows Aeo kbar Neen Oe eileen Bee Vehicles and’ cars, TIGHtS.4 5 sonaes case geen esse cceee yy fonds wees. DIS a as OP ae chy areae ence iy ig einige cath ate Wt onlin toto aceda u “ OP PADS pais. decd rd sia nda uae Mie ded dae ORE el sd Paw ad owe nr i Ho WES rightsiis. aah aye rae waco ab aaa Nol ae bedaetc DIO 7 “ 8 Piphtss a9 sug 4 drice Hatta eaw) aed cose dal na deabacay Adee: DAO Vice principal, 6. i 552.05 as dada eS ga cei eA ee Rha Ge ee Atlas Shem eye Dee Warning,-adults.: 2-5. stew Sinisa ea dees Gevalia asia de dale eases 02D STRIKING OUT EVIDENCE: When not curing error... 2... cece ete tence ene eee. 625 STRUCTURE: Meaning fence eae aad pe Genes ac pases veda ae ede aren ag ead dywe aaa O20 SUI JURIS: ASSUIPIION OS 10.05 atecy heed weeds By tye en oe as ae ee, O20) Burdén of: proof ess ¢éasceous4 Soh teasers aN Ve deed ase rea wee eas O26 Care depending on age ... 2.6.0... ce tent ce tence ss 526 Child under! 12.0.0. ca teccee ee ae deee ned nieemrd eee rsaaegeaa eee: O25 Presumption, non sui juris... 0.0.00. ce eee ete eee ee 525 716 INDEX SUPERINTENDENT: PAGE AGtS: Of seize peered Gols Bis oii ae en Soe oe cutee Se) be aS ale watain eS AY TOR a soa seated a AN MW ade entre Bano c.anah 4a/ Slee Shee SRN ea SRR LD PP SOT a ia alia Sis on aoa i a gels Ri aaa ay I lena aN, an ddd eG Na anaes ceh AOE Act not in master’s business... 2.0222. ce ce eee eee 526 Alter C20: ce axttantue dvetrrs eh enee esl sauces bee saben ie eo neared O20. OBO sacs easy Fn tac ole ercete O es Ree Bnete eae ety OMOLO 620! be sie we rie Ss ee Re Wire ey oak Sanh RS Me eas eee pe eee Ole Assistant superintendent... 20.000 .0 00 ccc cc cee eee ee eve ee 526 Authority OF 2c..205045 sash nena on aes ko Weeden an Shee PRE a ba ede eeaey B28 Boss; Acting yas: folie ce tncr eos dead Goedecek ae Bh ieadaaendata akanaas ear O25 a“ 6h BOSS; ACHE AS 5.10586, 48.22 etaawaaeien cee Me Gtahe, waa g SURE OS eee ew auanaG. DLS Danger, promise to protect... 0.2... oc et eee eee ee 528 Details scat wiser oleae ee temas marae ya eee aca net Saved Sanus OSS Duty and Walt y seni Lhecs teks oct s cpa enced tone ioe aw aate! 5 ataaamihnd gts mncn ducts DOO Elevator, moving on signals. .. 0... 0.0.00 ce eee ee ee 528 Employee, acting ais cc i. 6 i voce Tec decr ae deei ed dodereee oe eseessaree O28 Employee, acting as... 0.0. ccc ete teen ee ee 528 Hployers” acts... ose dinaion Band aloo ARMA GA aw Be we Ssanra talaga nay O20 AGH Ss 2 ed AR EES SES Gy Oe buy 4 he oa oh hee OE BE Ge Se ied SAee JOZE ACU eee GAs Coe ROd a eh. Seana Sahies TR uigh