Hyperlawhypertext legal database Muller v. Manhattan Railway Co. 96 N.Y.S. 270

← Cases

Muller v. Manhattan Railway Co.

96 N.Y.S. 270 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1905-11-24 English

Delivered by SCOTT, P. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 270
(48 Misc. Rep. 524)
MULLER v. MANHATTAN RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
November 24, 1905.)

Headnote

Carriers—Street Railroads—Injury to Passenger—Negligence.
A street railway company is not liable for negligent injury to a passenger, who left his seat before the car stopped, preparatory to alighting, and, placing his hand on the door jamb, was injured by the slamming of the door through' the sudden stop of the car; it not appearing that there was any excessive or unusual jolt in the stopping.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Carriers, § 1223.]
Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
Action by Carl Muller against the Manhattan Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
' Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and Mac-LEAN, JJ.
p. 271
Charles A. Gardiner (Merrill W. Gallaway, of counsel), for appellant.
Adolph Block and William L. Mathot, for respondent.

The defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. The plaintiff, traveling in one of defendant’s cars, wished to alight at Forty-Second street. As the train approached that street, the conductor announced it, and plaintiff arose and went to the door, preparatory to alighting when the train should stop. He put his hand on the jam of the doorway, and, as he says, “through the sudden stop of the train I bruised my hand when the door slammed.” This is the only evidence as to how the accident came to happen. No reason is given why the plaintiff should have put his hand on the door jamb, and there is nothing in the case to show that there was any excessive or unusual jolt or jerk in the stopping of the train. The car was equipped with a safety catch to hold the door, and the conductor testified that he had caught the door back before the train stopped. The mere characterization of the stop as “sudden” is not sufficient to justify the couclusion that it was unusual, or anything more than is necessarily attendant upon stopping a train. In our view there was no proof of negligence on defendant’s part justifying the submission of the case to the jury.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

GILDERSLEEVE, J., concurs. MacLEAN, J., taking no part.