Hyperlawhypertext legal database Buck v. Manhattan Railway Co. 19 N.Y. St. Rep. 908

← Cases

Buck v. Manhattan Railway Co.

19 N.Y. St. Rep. 908 Court N.Y.C.P. Decision date 1888-12-03 English

Delivered by Larremore, Ch. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 908
Carlos C. Buck, App’lt, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Resp’t.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed December 3, 1888.)

Headnote

Railroads—Protection to passengers—Negligence—When a question FOR THE JURY.
In an action against a railway to recover damages for an injury alleged to have been caused by negligence, where it is shown that a passenger in attempting to'get off-at his destination, was knocked ofE the car platform by other passengers boarding the train, and injured, no precaution being shown on the part of -the guard, to prevent interference between passengers getting on and off—it is error to direct a nonsuit as it is a question for the jury whether any necessary precaution has been omitted.
Appeal from a judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.
Charles Meyers, for app’lt; Davies & Rapallo, for res’pt.

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 Sixty-seventh 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

p. 909
train. The duty of the defendant as a common carrier toward its passengers required the exercise of proper care and precaution for their safety. Maverick v. Eighth Avenue R. 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 city. This proposition seems to have been fully sustained in Byrne v. N. Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co. ( 104 N. Y., 362 ; 5 N. Y. State Rep., 722.

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

Van Hoesén, J., concurs.