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.
John Derrenbacher, an Infant, etc., Respondent, v. The Lehigh Valley Railway Company, Appellant, 1882 — 87 N.Y. 636 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
John Derrenbacher, an Infant, etc., Respondent, v. The Lehigh Valley Railway Company, Appellant
87 N.Y. 636·New York Court of Appeals·1882·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
John Derrenbacher, an Infant, etc., Respondent, v. The Lehigh Valley Railway Company, Appellant.
(Argued October 20, 1881 ;
decided January 24, 1882.)
Mem. of decision below, 21 Hun, 612.
This action was brought to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant’s negligence.
Plaintiff was injured by the fall of a tub attached to- a derrick, which-was being used to discharge a cargo of iron ore from a canal boat into defendant’s cars at Perth Amboy; it was claimed that'the rope by which the tub was suspended was insufficient, and was old and defective. The judgment was reversed upon the ground that the evidence failed to show that the derrick was owned or furnished by the defendant, or that .it had any thing to do therewith, or that the men engaged were employed by it. On the contrary, it appeared that the pier was owned by another railroad company over whose tracks the defendant run its cars, and that the loading and unloading of boats from and to the cars was done • by outside parties. The court distinguish the case from Kmg v. H. Y. O. dh II. It. B. B. Oo. (72 N. V. 607), in this, that in the latter case the evidence tended to show that defendant agreed to furnish the derrick and keep the same in repair.
George A. Strong for appellant.
Edward H. Hobbs for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Miller, J.,]
Miller, J.,
reads for reversal.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.