151 N.Y. 107, Mitchell v. Rochester Ry. Co.

• Citation: 151 N.Y. 107
• Party Name: ANNIE MITCHELL, Respondent, v. ROCHESTER RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
• Case Date: December 01, 1896
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

Page 107

151 N.Y. 107

ANNIE MITCHELL, Respondent,

v.

ROCHESTER RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

New York Court of Appeal

December 1, 1896

Argued October 21, 1896.

COUNSEL

Charles J. Bissell for appellant. To make out a cause of action it must be established, not only that a defendant was guilty of a negligent act, but that the injury was produced by a cause which might naturally and reasonably be expected to follow from the negligent act. (Boswell on Civil Liability, 134, 135; Wharton on Negligence, § § 73-155; Tutein v. Hurley, 98 Mass. 211; Lowery v. M. R. Co., 99 N.Y. 158; Lehman v. B. C. R. R. Co., 47 Hun, 355; Ewing v. P. C. C. & S. L. Co., 147 Penn. St. 40; V. R. R. Comrs. v. Coultas, L. R. [ 13 App. Cas.] 222.) Fright alone, occasioned by the negligent act of another person, cannot be made the basis of an action. (Wyman v. Leavitt, 71 Me. 227; Rock v. Dennis, 4 Mont. L. R. 356; Johnson v. Wells, 6 Nev. 224; Lynch v. Knight, 9 H. of L. 577; Renner v. Canfield, 36 Minn. 90; Maine on Damages [Wood's Note], 70, 74; Canning v. Williamstown, 1 Cush. 451; Platt v. F. S. S. & G. S. F. R. R. Co., 2 Hun, 124; Creamer v. W. E. R. R. Co., 156 Mass. 320; Donovan v. H. S. R. Co., 65 Conn. 201; So Rell Case, 55 Tex. 308.)

Page 108

Norris Bull for respondent. The defendant was negligent. (1 S. & R. on Neg. [ 4th ed.] § 5; Smith v. S. P. C. R. Co., 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 310; Mullen v. St. John, 57 N.Y. 567; Cahilin v. Cochran, 1 N.Y. S. R. 583; Palmer v. D. & H. C. Co., 120 N.Y. 170; Rigdon v. A. L. Co., 37 N.Y. S. R. 514; Kreuzen v. F. S. S., M. & St. N. A. R. R. Co., 38 N.Y. S. R. 461; Holbrook v. U. & S. R. R. Co., 12 N.Y. 236; Curtis v. R. & S. R. R. Co., 18 N.Y. 536.) The plaintiff was a passenger upon defendant's railroad. (Grimes v. Penn. Co., 36 F. 72; Gordon v. G. S. & N. R. R. Co., 40 Barb. 546; Smith v. S. P. C. R. Co., 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 310; S. & R. on Neg. [ [4th ed.] § § 488, 490; Brien v. Bennett, 8 C. & P. 724.) The negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury. (Ehrgott v. Mayor, etc., 96 N.Y. 264; M., etc., R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469; Ryan v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 35 N.Y. 210; 1 S. & R. on Neg. [ 4th ed.] § 30; Ring v. City of Cohoes, 77 N.Y. 83; Martin v. N.Y. O. & W. R. Co., 62 Hun, 181; Pollett v. Long, 56 N.Y. 201; Gibney v. State, 137 N.Y. 1; Hill v. Kimble, 76 Tex. 210; Barbie v. Reese, 60 Miss. 906; Stutz v. C., etc., R. Co., 73 Wis. 147.) The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. (McNally v. P. Ins. Co., 137 N.Y. 389; Gordon v. G. S. & N. R. R. Co., 40 Barb. 546; Yoakum v. Kroeger, 27 S.W. 953.)

MARTIN, J.

The facts in this case are few and may be briefly stated. On the first day of April, 1891, the plaintiff was standing upon a crosswalk on Main street in the city of Rochester, awaiting an opportunity to board one of the defendant's cars which had stopped upon the street at that place. While standing there, and just as she was about to step upon the car, a horse car of the defendant came down the street. As the team attached to the car drew near, it turned to the right and came so close to the plaintiff that she stood between the horses' heads when they were stopped.

She testified that from fright and excitement caused by the

Page 109

approach and proximity of the team she became unconscious, and also that the result was a miscarriage and consequent illness. Medical testimony was given to...