4 Misc. 294, Norris v. Brooklyn City R. Co.
|Citation:||4 Misc. 294, 24 N.Y.S. 140|
|Party Name:||NORRIS v. BROOKLYN CITY RAILROAD CO.|
Judgment and order affirmed.
Where a horse-car conductor undertakes to carry more passengers than can sit and stand within the car and both platforms are filled to their utmost capacity, and by the breaking of the rear platform a passenger is thrown to the street, sustaining permanent and serious injuries, the questions as to whether the platform was insecure to defendant's knowledge or in the exercise of proper care should have been known, and whether defendant was negligent in permitting so large a number of persons to ride upon the platform is for the jury.
M. L. Towns, for plaintiff (respondent).
Morris & Whitehouse, for defendant (appellant).
On the evening of January 25, 1892, plaintiff was a passenger on a car of the Myrtle avenue branch of defendant's lines. He boarded the car near Fulton ferry, and, after riding some distance, surrendered his seat to a female passenger and took his stand in the rear doorway with his shoulder leaning against the door, one foot in the car and the other on the platform. As the car moved along it became greatly crowded, so that there were upwards of twenty-five passengers on the rear platform and some five or six people, including the conductor, stood on the guard-rail outside of the rear dashboard. When on Myrtle avenue near Duffield street, the rear platform broke and went to the ground, and by reason thereof, plaintiff was violently thrown to the street and sustained serious and permanent injuries. Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for said injuries, he claiming that they were caused by the negligence of the defendant, in that the platform was weak and insecure, and that defendant permitted said platform to become overcrowded and unable to sustain the weight imposed upon it. Plaintiff had a verdict, and from the judgment entered thereon and the order denying a motion for a new trial, this appeal is taken.
The one point presented on this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the exception taken to the denial of the motion to dismiss the complaint, and the ground urged is that plaintiff failed to establish negligence on the part of the defendant.
It appeared on the trial that the car in...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP