Hyperlawhypertext legal database Fouquet v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad 108 N.Y.S. 525

← Cases

Fouquet v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

108 N.Y.S. 525 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1908-01-24 English

Delivered by GAYNOR, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 525
FOUQUET v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
January 24, 1908.)

Headnote

Master and Servant—Fellow Servants—Who Are.
An architectural draughtsman provided by his employer with a room in its building is a fellow servant of one employed by the same company as operator of an elevator in the building used by all the employes therein, as affecting liability for injury to the draughtsman caused by the operator’s negligence.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, §§ 486-492.]
Appeal from Trial Term, Kings County.
Personal injury áction by John D. Fouquet against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad - Company. From a judgment for defendant ( 103 N. Y. Supp. 1105 ),. plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, HOOKER, MILLER, and GAYNOR, JJ.
Theo. H. Silkman, for appellant.
John C. Robinson, for respondent.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as architectural draughtsman, and provided by it with a room upstairs in its building known as the Grand Central Station, New York City,

p. 526
where its passenger trains come in and go out. He was hurt by the negligence of the elevator man, also employed by the defendant,, while being carried up to his room by the elevator in said building,, which is used by all of the employés of the defendant who work in.rooms or offices in the said building. The plaintiff and the elevator-man were fellow servants. Ross v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 488 , affirmed 74 N. Y. 617 , without opinion; McDonald v. Simpson Crawford Co., 114 App. Div. 859 , 100 N. Y. Supp. 269 ; Wright v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 564 ; Vick v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 95 N. Y. 267 , 47 Am. Rep. 36 ; Spees v. Boggs, 198 Pa. 112 , 47 Atl. 875 , 52 L. R. A. 933 , 82 Am. St. Rep. 792 .

The judgment should be affirmed.

■Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cases cited