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

• Decision Date: 04 June 1901
• Citation: 167 N.Y. 345,60 N.E. 632
• Parties: PLACE v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

167 N.Y. 345

60 N.E. 632

PLACE

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

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 4, 1901.

Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, Third department.

Action by Gertrude E. Place against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. From a judgment of the appellate division (61 N. Y. Supp. 1145) affirming a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

DIRECTING NONSUIT.

Where, in an action for personal injuries, the evidence as to questions of fact is conflicting, and the liability of defendant is based on the weight to be given the evidence, it is error to direct a nonsuit.

L. F. Fish for appellant.

C. D. Prescott, for respondent.

BARTLETT, J.

The plaintiff sues to recover damages of the defendant for personal injuries sustained by reason of its alleged negligence. The plaintiff was one of seven or eight persons crossing the tracks of the defendant, from north to south, in a sleigh, at St. Johnsville, on the evening of December 24, 1897, between 10 and 11 o'clock. At this point eight tracks of the defendant cross the only road in that locality leading from St. Johnsville south, and is known as ‘Bridge Street.’ St. Johnsville has some 2,000 inhabitants, and is located north of the tracks, there being only a few scattering buildings on the south side. The plaintiff and her companions, residing in the country south of St. Johnsville, were, at the time of the accident, returning home from a Christmas eve festival held in one of the churches of the town. The sleigh, while crossing the defendant's tracks, collided with one of the fast express trains moving west on the second track from the south, at a speed of 40 miles an hour, it making no stop at St. Johnsville. The sleigh, consisting of bobs and a woodrack, with straw in the bottom, was struck at a point about the center, the horses escaping, but all the passengers receiving more or less serious injuries. At the close of the evidence the learned trial judge dismissed the complaint, the plaintiff having sworn 15 and the defendant 20 witnesses. The appellate division affirmed the judgment of the trial term without an opinion.

A perusal of the record satisfies us there are questions of fact which should have been submitted to the jury. The following are the questions of fact which were sharply contested at the trial: Were proper signals, by bell or whistle, given as the train approached the crossing? Were the driver of the sleigh and his passengers vigilant or negligent when approaching and crossing the tracks? Was the speed of the train at 40 miles an hour (which is conceded) negligence on the part of the defendant, in view of existing conditions at the crossing? What were the existing conditions at the crossing as to the location of freight cars on the various tracks, and did they shut off the approaching train from the view of the plaintiff and her companions until they were on the track where the accident happened? Conflicting evidence, bearing upon all of these questions, was given by many witnesses who were interested, and by others who were not. The result of the trial clearly depended upon the weight which might be given by the jury to the evidence presented on behalf...