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

• Decision Date: 07 June 1898
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PIPER v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

156 N.Y. 224

50 N.E. 851

PIPER

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

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 7, 1898.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, Second department.

Action by Elwin S. Piper against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. From a judgment of the general term (34 N. Y. Supp. 1072) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Hamilton Harris, for appellant.

Joseph A. Burr, for respondent.

GRAY, J.

The plaintiff has sought to recover damages of the defendant for personal injuries, received by him while a passenger upon one of its trains which were attribut able, as he alleges, to neglect in management. He was a passenger upon the train from Albany to New York City in the night of January 13, 1892. He had purchased a ticket entitling him to a berth in a sleeping car, and took possession of it early in the evening, several hours before the car was attached to the train. The car was of the vestibule pattern, that being a construction, with respect to the platform, which permitted of a continuous passage from and to other similarly constructed cars without exposure to the discomforts or perils incident to a connection by open platforms. The sections for passengers were on either side of a straight aisle, which terminated, at either end, in washrooms for the use, respectively, of men and women. Beyond the washroom was the vestibule, on either side of which were doors opening upon the car steps and furnishing ingress and egress to the train. On the night in question, the men's washroom was in the forward end of the car. On the one side were the washbowls, and on the other were, first, a porter's closet, and, next to it, the water-closet. The door of this latter closet was about in the center of the washroom. The plaintiff had entered the car at Albany by that end, which, like the rest of the car, received its light from a hanging lamp. He had frequently traveled on vestibule trains, and was familiar with the sleeping-car arrangements upon this and other railroads. He had occasion, after retiring for the night to his section, to go to the men's closet in this washroom, and knew about its location. He was awakened in the morning by the porter, at about 6 o'clock, when the train was at or near Mott Haven, and, while partly undressed, again started for the men's closet. He observed that there was some light from a lamp in the center of the car, and that some came through the windows of the sections whose berths had already been made up. He testifies that, when he reached the threshold of the washroom, the part of the car where he stood was plunged into darkness, and that he believed they were in the Park avenue tunnel. There was no lamplight in the washroom, and none in the dome of the vestibule. He could distinguish such objects as the towels by the washbowls, but not one door from another. He proceeded on for a short distance, reached for the handle of the closet door, opened it, stepped, as he supposed, into the closet, and immediately fell off of the car and upon the track, where, after lying awhile, he was picked up suffering from a fractured leg. He had opened the vestibule door by mistake. He charges the defendant with the responsibility for the occurrence, in that the washroom was not lighted properly, and that the vestibule door was not locked or bolted, and he alleges that more employés were needed to insure a proper observance of the rules in those respects. He recovered a verdict, which the general term has sustained (34 N. Y. Supp. 1072); and the defendant now appeals to this court, asserting that not only its own freedom from negligence was shown, but that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and that, therefore, it was error to refuse to dismiss the complaint upon the evidence.

I think that the plaintiff should have been nonsuited. If we might assume that the defendant's servants were guilty of some neglect of duty which would impose a liability upon their employer for this accident (a proposition about which I entertain very considerable doubt), it is clear that the plaintiff failed to use that vigilance and prudence which it was incumbent upon him to use in the situation in which he was placed at the time. He had been a frequent traveler upon railroads, and was familiar with such sleeping-car accommodations as were furnished in the present instance. Upon this occasion, he was either so confident of his steps as to be indifferent as to where, or how far, they took him, or he was, from some cause or other, mentally preoccupied and oblivious of his surroundings, and acted mechanically, instead of intelligently. That will not do, and cannot be excused,...