Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Joseph Disher, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant, 1883 — 94 N.Y. 622 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
Joseph Disher, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant
94 N.Y. 622·New York Court of Appeals·1883·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Joseph Disher, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Argued October 15, 1883 ;
decided November 20, 1883.)
This action was brought to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence.
Plaintiff was a brakeman in its employ, and in consequence of the breaking of a brake-wheel he was thrown from a moving train and injured.
The propositions upon which the charge of negligence was based were that the brake-wheel was of a defective and insufficient pattern, which fact was known to defendant, and that it was weakened by an old .fracture, which defendant’s inspectors carelessly failed to discover. The coijrt here held that the evidence failed to show any facts to sustain either proposition.
James F. Gluck for appellant.
John T. Murray for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Finch, J.,]
Finch, J.,
reads for reversal and new trial.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.