156 N.Y. 224, Piper v. New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co.

Citation:156 N.Y. 224
Party Name:ELWIN S. PIPER, Respondent, v. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
Case Date:June 07, 1898
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 224

156 N.Y. 224

ELWIN S. PIPER, Respondent,

v.

THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

New York Court of Appeal

June 7, 1898

Argued May 4, 1898.

Page 225

COUNSEL

Hamilton Harris and Edwin D. Worcester, Jr., for appellant. The plaintiff, on his own showing, was clearly guilty of contributory negligence. (Adams v. R. R. Co., L. R. [ 4 C. P.] 739; Hickey v. R. R. Co., 14 Allen, 429; Lafflin v. B. & S.W. R. R. Co., 106 N.Y. 136, 142; Beach on Contrib. Neg. 248; Heaney v. L. I. R. R. Co., 112 N.Y. 125; Purdy v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 87 Hun, 97; Oleson v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 143 Ind. 405; Manley v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 18 A.D. 420; Vahue v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 18 A.D. 452; Bradley v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 65 N.W. 102; Weller v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 120 Mo. 635; Weston v. City of Troy, 139 N.Y. 281; Beltz v. City of Yonkers, 148 N.Y. 67; Hilsenbeck v. Guhring, 131 N.Y. 675; Halpin v. Townsend, 2 City Ct. Rep. 417; Reed v. Recrs. of R. & A. R. R. Co., 84 Va. 231, 239; Wiwirowski v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 124 N.Y. 420; Rodrian v. N.Y. N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 125 N.Y. 529; Bond v. Smith, 113 N.Y. 385; Dubois v. City of Kingston, 102 N.Y. 219; Cordell v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 75 N.Y. 330, 333; Gonzales v. N.Y. & H. R. R. Co., 38 N.Y. 440; Fiero v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 71 Hun, 213; Krauss v. Wallkill Valley R. R. Co., 69 Hun, 483; Babcock v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 140 N.Y. 308.)

Page 226

Joseph A. Burr for respondent. The question of plaintiff's contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury, and it was for them to say whether, under all the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff acted as a reasonably prudent man would act under similar circumstances, in proceeding to search for the door of the water closet in the dark instead of returning to the body of the car and asking the porter for a light. (Jarvis v. Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., 40 N.Y. S. R. 825; 133 N.Y. 623; Flagg v. M. R. Co., 17 J. & S. 251; Dawson v. Sloan, 17 J. & S. 304; McCauley v. Smith, 47 N.Y. S. R. 500; Palmer v. Dearing, 93 N.Y. 10; Tonkins v. N.Y. Ferry Co., 47 Hun, 562; Morrison v. Metropolitan Tel. Co., 69 Hun, 100; 144 N.Y. 703; Newson v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 29 N.Y. 383; Davenport v. Ruckman, 37 N.Y. 568; Jetter v. N.Y. & H. R. R. Co., 2 Keyes, 154; Hart v. Erie R. Co., 3 Alb. L. J. 312; Pettengill v. City of Yonkers, 116 N.Y. 558.)

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 attributable, 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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP