Hyperlawhypertext legal database Buck v. Manhattan Railway Co. 15 Daly (N.Y.) 48

← Cases

Buck v. Manhattan Railway Co.

15 Daly (N.Y.) 48 Court N.Y.C.P. Decision date 1888-12-03 English

Delivered by Larremore, Ch. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 48
Charles C. Buck, Appellant, against The Manhattan Railway Company, Respondent.
(Decided December 3d, 1888.)

Headnote

Plaintiff, a passenger on defendant’s elevated railroad, while attempting to get off the platform of a car at his station, was forced between the car platform and the station platform by others boarding the train, and was injured. In an action therefor, it did not appear that any precaution was taken by the guard upon such platform to prevent incoming passengers from interfering with plaintiff in his effort to leave the train. Held, that the question of negligence in such particular should have been submitted to the jury, and a dismissal of the complaint was error.
p. 49
Appeal from a judgment of this court entered upon the dismissal of a complaint at the trial.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
John W. Weed and Richard M. Henry, for appellant.
Howard Townsend and Henry B. Sedgwick Jr., for respondent.

The plaintiff was nonsuited upon the trial and the case for review presents a close question as to the defendant’s liability. ' Plaintiff was a passenger on the elevated railroad in Third Avenue, and when the train reached the station at 67th Street, he walked from his seat to the platform of the car, and while there some persons in their attempt to board the train caused him to fall between the car platform and the station platform. One of his legs was broken, and for this injury he brought suit.

It does not appear that any precaution was taken by the guard upon the train to prevent the incoming passengers from interfering with the plaintiff in his effort to leave the train.

' The duty of the defendant as a common carrier, toward its passengers, required the exercise of proper care and precaution for their safety (Mavelick v. Eighth Avenue R. Co., 36 N.Y. 378 ).

It seems to me that'if any necessary precaution was omitted on the part of the defendant to protect its passengers in their exit or egress, that question should have been left to the jury. This proposition seems to have been fully sustained in Byrne v. New York Central, &c., R. Co. ( 104 N.Y. 362 ).

I think the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Van Hoesen, J., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.

Cases cited