Hyperlawhypertext legal database Winter v. Interurban Street Railway Co. 96 N.Y.S. 1009

← Cases

Winter v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

96 N.Y.S. 1009 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1905-12-21 English

Delivered by BISCHOFF, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 1009
(49 Misc. Rep. 131)
WINTER v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
December 21, 1905.)

Headnote

Carriers—Injury to Passenger on Street Car—Negligence—Evidence.
An inference of negligence making the carrier liable for injury to a passenger on a street car is justified by the fact of the dislodgment of a nut causing the fall of the rear fender of the car, occasioning the accident ; the jury not being bound to accept as sufficient the carrier’s evidence of its system of inspection.
Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
Action by Thomas Winter against the Interurban Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
p. 1010
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BISCHOFF and MacEEAN, JJ.
Bayard H. Ames and E. Merriam Bagg, for appellant.
Joseph M. Davis, for respondent.

The plaintiff, when standing on the rear platform of the defendant’s street car, was struck by the brake handle and injured; the motion of the brake handle having been caused by the rebound of the rear fender of the car, which had fallen to the street through the dislodgment of a nut whereby it had been attached to the car.

It was competent for the jury to find that the loosening of this nut was the proximate cause of the injury, and, since the nut had a necessary purpose in holding the equipment of the car together, the fact that it became loose and failed of its purpose justified an inference that it had not been properly secured in place—an omission which touched the defendant in its duty of care towards its passengers, since an ^insecure condition of the fender, with the car in motion, was reasonably to be deemed dangerous to passengers on the platform. Within the rules applicable to cases of this kind, therefore, a cause of action was apparent, and the proof warranted a recovery unless the jury should accept as sufficient the defendant’s evidence of its system of inspection, which they were not bound to do. Palmer v. D. & H. C. Co., 120 N. Y. 170 , 24 N. E. 302 , 17 Am. St. Rep. 629 .

The case of Kelly v. Railroad Co., 109 N. Y. 44 , 15 N. E. 879 , relied upon by the appellant, had to do with the proof necessary to sustain an action where the passenger’s injury was due to a fall caused by catching her clothing in a broken hook of a window shade, and it was held that the defect was not sufficiently dangerous to require inspection and correction in avoidance of such an accident. The circumstances of the accident in the case at bar involved an omission of care in the operative means of conveyance, and, for the reasons stated in the Palmer Case (at page 177 of 120 N. Y., page 304 of 24 N. E. [ 17 Am. St. Rep. 629 ]), the Kelly Case is clearly distinguishable.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cases cited