Dominick T. Rosillo v. Erie Railroad Company

Second Circuit

Dominick T. Rosillo v. Erie Railroad Company

239 F.2d 760, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4230

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 27, 1956

Docket24089_1

StatusPublished

This text of 239 F.2d 760 (Dominick T. Rosillo v. Erie Railroad Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dominick T. Rosillo v. Erie Railroad Company, 239 F.2d 760, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4230 (2d Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In order to show that the verdict and judgment for the plaintiff here under appeal was erroneous, defendant must demonstrate that it was not negligent, or plaintiff was contributorily negligent, as a matter of law in the accident causing the personal injuries for which the plaintiff has recovered. But we think that a jury issue was properly presented And resolved. Plaintiff, an independent trucker, was commissioned to deliver an ■8,500 pound transformer from defendant’s freight terminal in New York City to the consignee. On the loading platform defendant’s agents used, in order to lift the rear end of the transformer, a lifting device known as a “hilo” with a capacity of 3,000 pounds. In the course of the operation the transformer came down upon plaintiff’s hand, causing serious injury. Under the attendant circumstances the jury could properly find that the defendant’s agents were negligent in overloading the hilo, that this caused the injury, and that plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hilo’s capacity and did not participate in its operation.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In order to show that the verdict and judgment for the plaintiff here under appeal was erroneous, defendant must demonstrate that it was not negligent, or plaintiff was contributorily negligent, as a matter of law in the accident causing the personal injuries for which the plaintiff has recovered. But we think that a jury issue was properly presented And resolved. Plaintiff, an independent trucker, was commissioned to deliver an ■8,500 pound transformer from defendant’s freight terminal in New York City to the consignee. On the loading platform defendant’s agents used, in order to lift the rear end of the transformer, a lifting device known as a “hilo” with a capacity of 3,000 pounds. In the course of the operation the transformer came down upon plaintiff’s hand, causing serious injury. Under the attendant circumstances the jury could properly find that the defendant’s agents were negligent in overloading the hilo, that this caused the injury, and that plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hilo’s capacity and did not participate in its operation.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 F.2d 760, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominick-t-rosillo-v-erie-railroad-company-ca2-1956.