Monigan v. Erie Railroad
Opinion
The following is the opinion of Lambert, J., delivered at Special Term:
The plaintiff’s intestate was a fireman upon a locomotive of defendant. An explosion occurred, death resulted and this action is sought to be maintained to recover damages. The complaint was served setting up the alleged facts sufficient in form to recover at common law. Issue was joined. Thereafter and within the time, as matter of right, an amended complaint was served alleging in form an action at common law and one under the Employers’ Liability Act.
The right of recovery for negligence was a common-law action, but extended by statute
[605]*605The purpose of the present practice is to so situate the parties as to prevent surprise on the trial. In the absence of injury to the defendant, I think if an election is to be required, that the trial judge can best exercise this right of discretion.
Motion denied, without costs.
The defendant may have ten days after the entry and service of the order herein.
Laws of 1902, chap. 600.— [Rep.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
99 A.D. 603 (Monigan v. Erie Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.