Hyperlawhypertext legal database Gregorio v. New York City Ry. Co. 97 N.Y.S. 373

← Cases

Gregorio v. New York City Ry. Co.

97 N.Y.S. 373 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1906-01-17 English

Delivered by SCOTT, P. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 373
GREGORIO v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
January 17, 1906.)

Headnote

Carriers—Street Railways—Negligence—Injuries to Passenger.
Evidence that while plaintiff, a passenger on defendant’s street car, started to alight after the car was stopped in response to a signal given by some one, she was thrown down by the car suddenly starting, it not appearing that the conductor knew that she was alighting, or that a signal to start was given by the conductor or any one, established a prima facie case of negligence on defendant’s part.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Carriers, § 1286.]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.
Action by Flora Lorenzo Gregorio against the New York City Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BLANCHARD and DOW-LING, JJ.
David M. Neuberger, for appellant.
William E. Weaver, for respondent.

The evidence justified a finding that plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant’s cars; that the car stopped at or near the intersection of Third avenue and Forty-Sixth street; that it was stopped in response to a signal given by some one; that plaintiff started to alight, and before she had safely done so the car started up and she was, thrown down. It did not appear that the conductor saw her or knew that she was alighting, nor did it appear that a signal to start was given by the conductor or any one. These facts, in our opinion, established a prima facie case of negligence on defendant’s part.

When a street surface car has come to a full standstill, reasonable

p. 374
care in its operation' demands that it shall not be started without some effort on the part of the conductor or motorman to determine whether this may be done with safety to passengers or intending passengers, and the question of negligence is one for the jury. Bessenger v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 79 App. Div. 32 , 79 N. Y. Supp. 1017 . In our opinion the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, and it was error to dismiss the complaint.

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