Lent v. New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 June 1890
• Parties: LENT v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

120 N.Y. 467

24 N.E. 653

LENT

v.NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

Court of Appeals of New York,

Second Division.

June 3, 1890.

Appeal from superior court of New York city, general term.

Frank Loomis, for appellant.

Aaron pennington Whitehead, for respondent.

BRADLEY, J.

The plaintiff suffered personal injuries which she alleges were occasioned by the negligence of the defendant. They were caused by her fall, when she was proceeding to step from the platform of one car onto that of the next car preceding it, through an opening between them, which she did not observe. The facts were that the plaintiff, with her brother, Mr. Russell, and her brother-inlaw, Mr. Gilbert, were at the Peekskill depot to take the train due there 7:46 P. M. for New York on July 6, 1884. That the train was late, and when it arrived the plaintiff with her party got onto it, and proceeded through the cars to the rear; and, finding all the seats occupied, they, upon the information of the conductor that another car would be put into the train, and at his suggestion, alighted from the rear of the train, and proceeded towards the forward end of it. The engine, with a section of the train, had then been severed from the rear portion, and proceeded east, thence back onto a switch, to there take on an empty car. The plaintiff, with Russell and Gilbert, got onto the front platform of the most easterly car of the stationary portion of the train, to await the connection with it of the empty car, which soon after was backed up, and, when they came together, persons standing on the platform passed from it into the empty car; Gilbert with them. He called to the plaintiff to come into it, which she undertook to do, and, when proceeding to stop from the platform of the one to that of the other car, she fell between them onto the track, and received the injury complained of. The open space between the platforms of the two cars was occasioned by the failure, when they came together, of the draw-heads to catch and complete the coupling; in consequence of which the cars receded, making an opening between their platforms of several feet. The coupling apparatus was automatical, such as is in general use, and, so far as appears, well approved. There was no defect in it or in the engine or train, in their equipment, in any respect. It appears that the coupling process requires for its completion a certain force in making the contact; that it is not always accomplished at the first attempt; and that it is more difficult to do it when, as was in this instance, the train is on a curve of the road. The failure to make the coupling when the draw-heads first were brought in contact was not, nor was the gap between them which followed it, occasioned by any negligence of the defendant.

The question, therefore, arises whether the plaintiff's injury was caused by any fault of its employes. The relation of passenger and carrier between the plaintiff and defendant commenced when she went onto its premises and purchased her ticket for the purpose of taking the train, and the defendant assumed the duty of reasonable care for her protection while proceeding to take the train. This, however, gave to her no right to enter a car before it was attached to the train. The plaintiff evidently supposed when the cars came together that they were coupled, and the empty one ready to receive passengers. This was the appearance which the shock of the contact gave. At that time the adjacent platform of the next car back of it was fully occupied with passengers ready to enter. The plaintiff was in the rear of them, and standing just inside the car. The defendant's employes were in a situation to see whether the coupling was complete; and with them was the duty, if it was not so, of informing the passengers, and requesting or directing them to wait until it was done. This those employes testify they did do by distinctly telling them to keep back, to stand back off the platform, and that this was repeated. If this were so, and nothing further occurred to induce the passengers to go forward when they did, and when the plaintiff sought to do so, it would be difficult to find any support for the charge of negligence against the defendant. But there is evidence tending to prove that at the moment the cars came together the conductor hallooed, ‘All aboard,’ and that the plaintiff and those with her heard it; and that thereupon the passengers proceeded from the platform of the car, on which she was, to pass into that ahead of it, and she followed. The evidence of such announcement of the conductor was contradicted by his evidence, and that of the brakemen there. This question was one of fact for the jury; and finding, as it may now be assumed they did, that the conductor, simultaneously with the coming together of the cars, called out as before mentioned, the conclusion of the jury was permitted that it enabled the passengers to understand (unless they saw something to the contrary) that the car was ready for them to enter it. And it may have been theated as an invitation to do so; and as it was given prematurely, or before it was entirely safe to do so, it was the fault of the defendant's employe, which justified the imputation of negligence against the defendant. Filer v. Railroad...