42 A. 486 (N.J. 1898), Exton v. The Central Railroad Company of New Jersey

Citation42 A. 486, 62 N.J.L. 7
Opinion JudgeLIPPINCOTT, J.
Party NameJOSEPH H. EXTON AND FANNY P. EXTON, HIS WIFE, v. THE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY
AttorneyFor the plaintiffs, Paul A. Queen and H. Burdett Herr. For the defendant, George H. Large and John L. Conover.
Judge PanelBefore Justices LIPPINCOTT, GUMMERE and LUDLOW.
Case DateJune 13, 1898
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

Page 486

42 A. 486 (N.J. 1898)

62 N.J.L. 7

JOSEPH H. EXTON AND FANNY P. EXTON, HIS WIFE,

v.

THE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY

Supreme Court of New Jersey

June 13, 1898

Argued February 21, 1898.

Rule to show cause discharged, with costs.

For the plaintiffs, Paul A. Queen and H. Burdett Herr.

For the defendant, George H. Large and John L. Conover.

Before Justices LIPPINCOTT, GUMMERE and LUDLOW.

OPINION

LIPPINCOTT, J.

Page 487

[62 N.J.L. 8] On rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside.

This is an action by Joseph H. Exton and Fanny P. Exton, his wife, against the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, to recover damages for personal injuries to Mrs. Exton and resulting damages to her husband. The declaration contains two counts, one averring damages to the wife for her personal injuries and the other for resulting damages to her husband. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, and awarded the sum of $ 500 damages to Mr. Exton and the sum of $ 1,750 to Mrs. Exton.

It was not contended upon the argument that the damages [62 N.J.L. 9] were excessive. An examination of the evidence as to this question does not reveal any misapplication of the law by the jury in its award of damages. The facts of the case fully warrant the verdict as to the amounts awarded.

The only discussion is whether, upon the evidence in the cause, upon the application of proper principles of law, the jury could determine as they did, that liability of the defendant to respond in damages existed.

The undisputed facts are, that on November 23rd, 1893, Mrs. Exton was on her way from Brooklyn, where she had been making a visit, to her home at High Bridge, in this state. She proceeded to the Central railroad depot or passenger station on West street, at the foot of Liberty street, in the city of New York. She entered the waiting-room in which the ticket office is located and purchased her ticket. The main waiting-room and entrance to the ferry across the Hudson river to the train in Jersey City lie farther inside. Her trunk was in the baggage-room, and after she had purchased her ticket she went out of one of the doors of this waiting-room upon the passageway to the baggage-room or the window thereof, in order to have her baggage checked. As she proceeded along this passageway, and when near the window of the baggage-room, she saw two men scuffling on or near the passageway; instantaneously she was run against or backed against by one of these men and knocked down and injured. She says at the moment she saw them she was knocked down and injured, and in this assertion she is not contradicted. They were just inside an offset of the building, at the window or entrance to the baggage-room, and she was knocked down just as she turned the corner of this offset, and it was only at that moment that she saw the men. It appears from the evidence that the passageway is a boardwalk or platform about four feet wide; outside of this is also a stonewalk three feet wide. This walk runs along in front of the passenger station, leading from the waiting-room or ticket office to the baggage-room, a little to the south of the waiting-room. The baggage-room sits a little back from [62 N.J.L. 10] the outside line of the passenger station or waiting-room, and there a recess-angle or offset is created. It was just at this recess, near the window, that the scuffling of the men and the knocking down of Mrs. Exton took place. Over these spaces, in front and extending farther out, is a roof supported nearer the outward edge thereof by iron columns or supports.

There is no dispute in this case that this boardwalkway is usually used by passengers to get their baggage checked after the purchase of their tickets, or before they go to the inside or main waiting-room on their way to the ferryboats to cross the river. The evidence also shows that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 practice notes
  • 69 Cal.App.2d 682, 1277, Terrell v. Key System
    • United States
    • California California Court of Appeals
    • 25 Junio 1945
    ...to fail to furnish protection against assaults by such vagrants upon arriving or departing passengers. In Exton v. Central Railroad Co., 62 N.J.L. 7 [42 A. 486, 56 L.R.A. 508], the custom of cabmen crowding and jostling at the defendant's station in the solicitation of fares from departing ......
  • 131 S.W. 869 (Ark. 1910), St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Woods
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 31 Octubre 1910
    ...Neg., § 2748; 65 Ark. 255; 257-8; 97 Cal. 114; 104 Mo. 239; 120 Ga. 380; 116 Ga. 743; 77 Ill.App. 66; 96 Ia. 169; 60 A. 710; 141 Mass. 31; 62 N.J.L. 7-12; 104 N. E. (Mich.) 390; 77 N.E. 1051; 83 Tex. 309; 106 N.W. 395; 6 Cyc. 608; 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 532. 2. If appellee went to th......
  • 288 A.2d 127 (Md. 1972), 241, Nigido v. First Nat. Bank of Baltimore
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 9 Marzo 1972
    ...630 (1952); Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 43 A.2d 828 (1945); Exton v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, [264 Md. 707] 62 N.J.L. 7, 42 A. 486 (1899); McLeod v. Grant County School Dist. No. 128, 42 Wash.2d 316, 255 P.2d 360 (1953); Lee v. National League Baseball Club of Mi......
  • 65 Cal.2d 114, 28847, Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc.
    • United States
    • California United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 15 Agosto 1966
    ...Pa. 41, 161 A.2d 367; Rommel v. Schambacher, 120 Pa. 579, 11 A. 779; Peck v. Gerber, 154 Or. 126, 106 A.L.R. 996; Exton v. Central R. Co., 62 N.J.L. 7, 42 A. 486, 56 L.R.A. 508; Molloy v. Coletti, 114 Misc. 177, 186 N.Y.S. 730; Moone v. Smith, 6 Ga.App. 649, 65 S.E. 712, later app. 7 Ga.App......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
40 cases
  • 65 Cal.2d 114, 28847, Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 15 Agosto 1966
    ...Pa. 41, 161 A.2d 367; Rommel v. Schambacher, 120 Pa. 579, 11 A. 779; Peck v. Gerber, 154 Or. 126, 106 A.L.R. 996; Exton v. Central R. Co., 62 N.J.L. 7, 42 A. 486, 56 L.R.A. 508; Molloy v. Coletti, 114 Misc. 177, 186 N.Y.S. 730; Moone v. Smith, 6 Ga.App. 649, 65 S.E. 712, later app. 7 Ga.App......
  • 131 S.W. 869 (Ark. 1910), St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Woods
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 31 Octubre 1910
    ...Neg., § 2748; 65 Ark. 255; 257-8; 97 Cal. 114; 104 Mo. 239; 120 Ga. 380; 116 Ga. 743; 77 Ill.App. 66; 96 Ia. 169; 60 A. 710; 141 Mass. 31; 62 N.J.L. 7-12; 104 N. E. (Mich.) 390; 77 N.E. 1051; 83 Tex. 309; 106 N.W. 395; 6 Cyc. 608; 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 2. If appellee went to the dep......
  • 202 A.2d 439 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1964), A--653, Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • 30 Junio 1964
    ...* that is to say of recognizable danger of injury.' * * *' (25 N.J., at pp. 461, 462, 136 A.2d, at p. 894.) In Exton v. Central R.R. Co., 62 N.J.L. 7, 42 A. 486, 56 L.R.A. 508 (Sup.Ct.1898), affirmed o.b. 63 N.J.L. 356, 46 A. 1099, 56 L.R.A. 508 (E. & A. 1899), the railroad operated a p......
  • 622 A.2d 1295 (N.J. 1993), Lieberman v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 14 Abril 1993
    ...another between the train and platform Page 1300 because carrier had duty to protect against known dangers); Exton v. Central R.R. Co., 62 N.J.L. 7, 42 A. 486 (Sup.Ct.1898), aff'd o.b., 63 N.J.L. 356, 46 A. 1099 (E. & A.1899) (finding carrier liable because of knowledge of criminal prop......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT