In Flood v. U.N. Tel. Co., 131 N.Y. 603, a lineman was killed by the breaking of a cross-arm on which he sat while working on one of the defendant's poles.
Summary of this case from Consol. Gas Co. v. ChambersArgued February 2, 1892
Decided March 1, 1892
Louis Marshall for appellant.
A.T. Benedict for respondent.
EARL, Ch. J., reads for reversal and new trial.
FINCH, PECKHAM and MAYNARD, JJ., concur; ANDREWS, GRAY and O'BRIEN, JJ., dissent.
Judgment reversed.
In Flood v. U.N. Tel. Co., 131 N.Y. 603, a lineman was killed by the breaking of a cross-arm on which he sat while working on one of the defendant's poles.
Summary of this case from Consol. Gas Co. v. ChambersIn Flood v. W.U. Tel. Co., (supra), the facts were quite similar to those in the present case; except that, there, it did not appear from the evidence that the company had been negligent in furnishing the cross-arm.
Summary of this case from Johnston v. Syracuse Lighting Co.In Flood v. Western Union Tel. Co. (131 N.Y. 603) it is true that the pole was not the property of a third party, but belonged to the defendant, but even in that case a judgment in favor of plaintiff was reversed in this court where it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover for fatal injuries sustained by the breaking of a crossarm on a telegraph pole precipitating him to the ground.
Summary of this case from McGuire v. Bell Telephone Co.In Flood v. Western Union, 131 N.Y. 603, the plaintiff, a lineman, fell by the breaking of a cross-arm which had been in use six years.
Summary of this case from McDonald v. Postal Telegraph Co.In Flood v. Western Union Tel. Co. (131 N.Y. 603) a system of inspection of the cross arms of telegraph poles by looking at them from the ground was held sufficient as against the servants of the defendant, the linemen who, in the course of their employment, had to climb the poles.
Summary of this case from Lenz v. AldrichFull title:MARY FLOOD, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v . THE WESTERN UNION…
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Mar 1, 1892
I concur with Judge CULLEN. As in the case of railroad cars, the company which uses them owes the duty to its…
Kramer v. Power Light Co.(a) Under the pleadings and the evidence there was no actionable negligence against the appellant. 9 R.C.L.…