From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morgan v. Hudson River Ore and Iron Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 24, 1892
31 N.E. 624 (N.Y. 1892)

Summary

In Morgan v. Hudson River Ore Iron Co. (133 N.Y. 666, 670) it was held that "if a master is engaged in a complex business, that requires definite regulations for the safety and protection of his employees, a failure to adopt proper rules as well as laxity in their enforcement, is negligence per se."

Summary of this case from Egelston v. the New York, Chicago and St. Louis Rd. Co.

Opinion

Argued May 6, 1892

Decided May 24, 1892

Frank E. Smith for appellant.

Levi F. Longley for respondent.



O'BRIEN, J., reads for reversal.

All concur.

Judgment reversed.


Summaries of

Morgan v. Hudson River Ore and Iron Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 24, 1892
31 N.E. 624 (N.Y. 1892)

In Morgan v. Hudson River Ore Iron Co. (133 N.Y. 666, 670) it was held that "if a master is engaged in a complex business, that requires definite regulations for the safety and protection of his employees, a failure to adopt proper rules as well as laxity in their enforcement, is negligence per se."

Summary of this case from Egelston v. the New York, Chicago and St. Louis Rd. Co.

In Morgan v. Hudson River Ore Iron Co. (133 N.Y. 666, 670) the court say: "Even if it could be shown, after the accident occurred, that it might have been prevented by adopting and enforcing some suitable rule, that would constitute no proper test of liability.

Summary of this case from Deebach v. Robert Gair Co.
Case details for

Morgan v. Hudson River Ore and Iron Company

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS F. MORGAN, Respondent, v . THE HUDSON RIVER ORE AND IRON COMPANY…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 24, 1892

Citations

31 N.E. 624 (N.Y. 1892)
31 N.E. 624
45 N.Y. St. Rptr. 112

Citing Cases

G.C. S.F. Ry. Co. v. Finley

When submitted to the jury, the reasonableness of such regulations is a question for the jury. The rule of…

Wolfinger v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Co.

But the question is whether the failure to adopt such a rule is the omission of that reasonable care which…