Field v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Field v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

35 Misc. 111, 71 N.Y.S. 220

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 Misc. 111 (Field v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Field v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 35 Misc. 111, 71 N.Y.S. 220 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Hiscock, J.

This action is brought to recover damages for the death of plaintiffs intestate, alleged to have been caused through the negligence of defendant. Several grounds of negligence are alleged. Upon the argument of the motion an agreement was reached between the counsel as to what should be done in the way of serving a bill of items of the alleged negligence of the. defendant in all respects save one. The accident was caused by a rear end collision of one freight train with another. Amongst other things, it is alleged that the defendant “ wrongfully and negligently failed to provide said Field with competent temperate coemployees and with a sufficient number to handle its train and cars.” A large number of employees must necessarily have been engaged in the operation of the trains and tracks which were involved in this accident. It requires a large amount of investigation and very often a large number of witnesses to enable a defendant to be prepared to defend the character of an employee. I think it would be too burdensome to require this defendant to institute such investigation and make such preparation in the case of a large number of employees as it would be forced to do, unless some previous indication was given of the particular ones who were to be subjected to criticism by the plaintiff, and that, therefore, it is proper that plaintiff should furnish defendant with the necessary particulars, indicating by name or by the positions which they held at the time of the accident the employees whose competency she proposes to question upon the trial of the case.

It was suggested upon the argument that the affidavit by one of the defendant’s attorneys as to the necessity for a bill of particulars was not sufficient, but that such affidavit should have been made by one of the officers of the defendant. I think, however, that the affidavit furnished was sufficient and gives sufficient reasons for its being made by the attorney rather than some other officer of the defendant.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Hiscock, J.

This action is brought to recover damages for the death of plaintiffs intestate, alleged to have been caused through the negligence of defendant. Several grounds of negligence are alleged. Upon the argument of the motion an agreement was reached between the counsel as to what should be done in the way of serving a bill of items of the alleged negligence of the. defendant in all respects save one. The accident was caused by a rear end collision of one freight train with another. Amongst other things, it is alleged that the defendant “ wrongfully and negligently failed to provide said Field with competent temperate coemployees and with a sufficient number to handle its train and cars.” A large number of employees must necessarily have been engaged in the operation of the trains and tracks which were involved in this accident. It requires a large amount of investigation and very often a large number of witnesses to enable a defendant to be prepared to defend the character of an employee. I think it would be too burdensome to require this defendant to institute such investigation and make such preparation in the case of a large number of employees as it would be forced to do, unless some previous indication was given of the particular ones who were to be subjected to criticism by the plaintiff, and that, therefore, it is proper that plaintiff should furnish defendant with the necessary particulars, indicating by name or by the positions which they held at the time of the accident the employees whose competency she proposes to question upon the trial of the case.

It was suggested upon the argument that the affidavit by one of the defendant’s attorneys as to the necessity for a bill of particulars was not sufficient, but that such affidavit should have been made by one of the officers of the defendant. I think, however, that the affidavit furnished was sufficient and gives sufficient reasons for its being made by the attorney rather than some other officer of the defendant.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 111, 71 N.Y.S. 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/field-v-new-york-central-hudson-river-railroad-nysupct-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack