Lafflin v. Buffalo & S.W.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1887
• Citation: 106 N.Y. 136,12 N.E. 599
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: LAFFLIN v. BUFFALO & S. W. R. CO.

106 N.Y. 136

12 N.E. 599

LAFFLIN

v.BUFFALO & S. W. R. CO.¹

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 7, 1887.

George C. Greene, for appellant.

W. S. Oliver, for respondent.

EARL, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff in alighting from one of the defendant's cars, and the circumstances of the accident are as follows: The train in which she was a passenger reached the station at Dayton in this state on the twentieth day of January, 1880, at 8 o'clock in the evening, and she left the car for the purpose of changing to another train at that place, and, in her effort to step from the car to the station platform, she fell between it and the car, and sustained the injuries of which she complains. She alleges that the space between the platform and the car was too great, and that in consequence thereof, when she stepped off from the car, she failed to reach the platform, and was thus caused to fall. There is no complaint that the platform was out of repair, or that it was improperly constructed. The only complaint is that it was too far from the car. The platform was two and one-half feet higher than the top of the iron rail, and above three feet above the top of the ground. The distance between the outer line of the car and the platform was 11 inches. There were three steps at the end of the car, and the lower one was eight inches below the top of the platform, and one foot and seven inches from the side thereof. The second step was two feet and two inches from the side of the platform, and about four inches lower than the top thereof. The height of the platform of the car above the iron rails was about four feet. The plaintiff passed out of the car onto the car platform, and then to the second step, and without having hold of the iron railing on either side, and without looking to see the station platform, she stepped out, and, failing to reach it, fell.

There was no proof that the platform was not constructed in the ordinary way, nor that the space between it and the car was any greater than the exigencies of the business and the operations of the railroad required. There was no evidence that any accident had ever happened at that station before on account of the construction of the platform, or that there had ever been any complaint in reference to it. On the contrary the evidence shows that the platform had been used for many years by men, women, and children, and that no one but the plaintiff had ever been injured, or had suffered any inconvenience, on account of the distance of the platform from the cars. Thousands of men, women, and children must have passed from the cars to this platform in entire safety. Under such circumstances, how can it be properly said that the defendant was guilty of any carelessness in its construction and maintenance? It was not bound so to construct this platform as to make accidents to passengers using the same impossible, or to use the highest degree of diligence to make it safe, convenient, and useful. It was bound simply to exercise ordinary care, in view of the dangers attending its use; to make it reasonably adequate for the purposes to which it was devoted. In the case of a platform which had always been safe, and answered its purpose for men, women, and children, in all kinds of weather, by night and by day, for many years, what was there to suggest to any prudent person any change or improvement for the purpose of making it more safe or convenient?

In the case of Dougan v. Champlain Transp. Co., 56 N. Y. 1, the plaintiff's intestate, a passenger, slipped under the gangway rail of a steam-boat, fell overboard, and was drowned; and it appeared that all the boats upon Lake Champlain were constructed in the same manner; that they had been so run for many years, and there was no proof tending to show that any one had ever before gone overboard in that way; and it was held that the plaintiff was properly nonsuited. GROVER,...