Bradley v. Jaeckel

According to the plaintiff’s own testimony, just before the accident occurred, he was walking westerly on the southerly side of West Thirty-Sixth street, in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York. His destination was 21 West Thirty-Sixth street, which house he was engaged in decorating. When he got opposite No. 17, he started to cross the street toward No. 21. Before starting, he claims he looked toward Fifth avenue and toward Sixth avenue, east and west, but saw nothing in either direction, though his view was entirely unobstructed. When he had taken two or three steps from the curb, the defendant’s automobile struck him, causing the injuries for which the action is brought. According to the plaintiff’s witness Aldhouse, who ran up immediately after the accident, he found the plaintiff lying on the south side of the street about two feet from the curb. This witness also testified that he saw the car approaching

Upon these facts, it is insisted on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence- as a matter of law. It must be conceded that the plaintiff’s testimony that he looked back toward Fifth avenue and saw nothing as he started to cross the street, and was struck by the car after he had gone two or three steps, is in-1 credible in view of the 'testimony of his own witness that the car was moving at the rate of from 12-to 15 miles an hour, and the undisputed fact that the distance was upwards of 300 feet. If the car was moving at a speed of 15 miles an hour and the plaintiff was moving at the extremely slow rate of 1% miles an hour, he would have traveled over 30 feet while the car was coming from Fifth avenue to the point of the accident. Thirty feet would have carried him well across the street and out of danger. The fact is he had moved only two or three steps from the curb before he was struck.

But, conceding all this, and that the plaintiff did not look back before stepping into the street, I do not think that it follows that the judgment should be reversed. The car was traveling on the wrong side of the street, and close to the curb. It has been held that the duty imposed upon a wayfarer at the crossing of a street by the track of a railroad to look both ways does not as a matter of law attach to such person when about to cross from one side to the other of a city street; • the reason given for the distinction being that, in the case ■of the railroad, the danger is obvious and constantly impending, and not easily or likely to be under the control of the engineer, while in the case of a street the vehicles are managed without difficulty and injuries are infrequent. Moebus v. Herrmann, 108 N. Y. 349 , 15 N. E. 415 , 2 Am. St. Rep. 440 . Especially would it be unwarranted to hold that when a person steps from the curb of a city street, particularly one hot constituting an important artery of traffic; that he must look, not only in the direction from which vehicles may rightfully be traveling on that side of the street, but that he must look back as well, in order to be sure that nothing is approaching from the rear on the side of the street prohibited by the rule of the road to vehicles traveling from that direction. It is no hardship upon owners of automobiles which are traveling silently and without any signal of warning, as in this case, and on the wrong side of the street and close to the curb, to hold that the person in control of the car must be observant, not only of what is directly in front of it, but of pedestrians who are traveling on the sidewalk and who may step into the street in front of the car. In such a situation the driver of the car should either give a signal of warning to any pedestrian who is traveling on the sidewalk and may come into a position of danger if he steps off the curb, or

It is also claimed that the verdict was contrary to the weight of evidence, but I cannot discover any sufficient reason for disturbing the judgment upon this ground.

The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

GOFF, J., concurs.

(dissenting). It is certainly elementary law that a plaintiff has in this state the burden of showing, not only that the fendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence. While I am unwilling to concur with Mr. Justice GIEGERICH in his statement as to the duty of care on the part of a chauffeur driving in the city streets, I believe that there are few, if any, automobile accidents which a careful chauffeur could not avoid, unless the pedestrian was himself at fault. An automobile has no exclusive right of way either at crossings or between crossings, and the driver should at all times have his machine under such control that he will not injure a pedestrian in full possession of his'faculties who himself uses ordinary care. Nevertheless, the pedestrian is also bound to use due caution to avoid an accident, and must show as part of his affirmative case that he did use due caution. To meet this burden, the plaintiff has testified that he looked both ways before he started to cross the street. The uncontradicted evidence totally discredits this testimony as shown in the opinion of Mr. Justice GIEGERICH. He either did not look towards Fifth avenue, or, if he did, he saw this machine, and deliberately walked into the danger. There remains, therefore, no credible testimony that will show an absence of contributory negligence. To affirm the verdict of the jury, we must hold that, where a person crosses a street without looking for approaching vehicles, he is not guilty of contributory negligence, if he is struck by a vehicle on the wrong side of the street where he had no warning of its approach. Such a doctrine appears to me both unreasonable and without authority. It is true that iii the case of Moebus v. Herrmann, 108 N. Y. 349 , 354, 15 N. E. 415 , 416 ( 2 Am. St. Rep. 440 ), the court said:

“The duty imposed upon a wayfarer at the crossing of a street by the track of a railroad to look both ways does not as a matter of law attach to such person when about to cross from one side to the other of a city street. The degree of caution he must exercise will be affected by the situation and surrounding circumstances.”

This statement of law must, however, be considered in connection with the facts of that case. The plaintiff in that case was a child of seven years, and the trial judge charged the jury that:

“A child of immature years, whilst bound to exercise care, is held to no higher degree of forethought than you could expect of his age.”

The plaintiff had testified that he “would, if he saw a wagon coming, wait until it passed,” and that at the time of the accident he was looking “straight ahead.” The Court of Appeals simply decided that un

I think that the plaintiff herein has totally failed to show such care, and the judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.