Morrello v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morrello v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

268 A.D.2d 377, 702 N.Y.S.2d 280, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 779

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 377 (Morrello v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morrello v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 268 A.D.2d 377, 702 N.Y.S.2d 280, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Su[378]*378preme Court, New York County (Dominick Viscardi, J.), entered July 10, 1998, upon a jury verdict in plaintiffs favor for $1,850, unanimously modified, on the law, the matter remanded for a new trial only on the issue of defendant’s liability under the Federal Boiler Inspection Act, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a yard conductor employed by defendant carrier, was injured while helping to move an empty train with two adjoining locomotives from a train yard to Penn Station. En route, the automatic braking system engaged. Plaintiff was dispatched to check the hoses between the locomotives. Upon discovering that, in fact, two hoses had decoupled, he prepared to climb up on one locomotive in order to travel through it to reach the location of the decoupling. However, as he started to climb the ladder, one foot slipped on the ballast from which he had stepped toward the ladder, whereupon plaintiff fell backward and he sustained injuries. Plaintiffs entitlement to recover under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act is not in issue, nor do we disturb that verdict.

Boiler Inspection Act (45 USC) § 23, in effect at the time, states in pertinent part that “ [i] t shall be unlawful for any carrier to use or permit to be used on its line any locomotive unless said locomotive, its boiler, tender, and all parts and appurtenances thereof are in proper condition and safe to operate in the service to which the same are put”. Plaintiff offered evidence, countered by defendant’s employee, that the hoses were too short, causing the emergency brake to engage. Plaintiffs theory in support of the Boiler Inspection Act claim is that the condition of the hoses caused the decoupling and the braking, requiring plaintiffs presence at the location where he was hurt. In refusing to submit the claim to the jury, the trial court concluded that the condition of the air hoses was not the causative agent of the injury, which resulted solely from climbing the ladder. However, this, properly, was a factual issue for the jury. Concur—Tom, J. P., Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Su[378]*378preme Court, New York County (Dominick Viscardi, J.), entered July 10, 1998, upon a jury verdict in plaintiffs favor for $1,850, unanimously modified, on the law, the matter remanded for a new trial only on the issue of defendant’s liability under the Federal Boiler Inspection Act, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a yard conductor employed by defendant carrier, was injured while helping to move an empty train with two adjoining locomotives from a train yard to Penn Station. En route, the automatic braking system engaged. Plaintiff was dispatched to check the hoses between the locomotives. Upon discovering that, in fact, two hoses had decoupled, he prepared to climb up on one locomotive in order to travel through it to reach the location of the decoupling. However, as he started to climb the ladder, one foot slipped on the ballast from which he had stepped toward the ladder, whereupon plaintiff fell backward and he sustained injuries. Plaintiffs entitlement to recover under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act is not in issue, nor do we disturb that verdict.

Boiler Inspection Act (45 USC) § 23, in effect at the time, states in pertinent part that “ [i] t shall be unlawful for any carrier to use or permit to be used on its line any locomotive unless said locomotive, its boiler, tender, and all parts and appurtenances thereof are in proper condition and safe to operate in the service to which the same are put”. Plaintiff offered evidence, countered by defendant’s employee, that the hoses were too short, causing the emergency brake to engage. Plaintiffs theory in support of the Boiler Inspection Act claim is that the condition of the hoses caused the decoupling and the braking, requiring plaintiffs presence at the location where he was hurt. In refusing to submit the claim to the jury, the trial court concluded that the condition of the air hoses was not the causative agent of the injury, which resulted solely from climbing the ladder. However, this, properly, was a factual issue for the jury. Concur—Tom, J. P., Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 377, 702 N.Y.S.2d 280, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrello-v-national-railroad-passenger-corp-nyappdiv-2000.