63 N.Y. 556, Burrows v. Erie Ry. Co.

Citation:63 N.Y. 556
Party Name:LUCINDA BURROWS, Respondent, v. THE ERIE RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
Case Date:January 18, 1876
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 556

63 N.Y. 556

LUCINDA BURROWS, Respondent,

v.

THE ERIE RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

New York Court of Appeal

January 18, 1876

Argued Dec. 10, 1875.

Page 557

COUNSEL

O. W. Chapman for the appellant. Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. (Gavett v. M. and L. R. Co., 16 Gray, 501; Morrison v. Erie R. Co., 56 N.Y. 302; Lucas v. T. and N. B. R. Co., 6 Gray, 64, 71; Hickey v. B. and L. R. Co., 14 Al., 432, 433.) Plaintiff, in order to recover, was bound to establish affirmatively that she was guilty of no negligence that contributed to the injury. (Wilds v. H. R. R. R. Co., 24 N.Y. 430, 432; Deyo v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 34 Id., 9; 91 C. L. R., 146; 7 Robt., 116; Damont v. N. O. R. R. Co., La. Ann., 441; R. R. Co. v. Aspell, 23 Penn., 147, 149, 151, 152; Guinon v. N.Y. and H. R. R. Co., 3 Robt., 25, 31, 32; Nichols v. Sixth Ave. R. R. Co., 38 N.Y. 133-135.)

Arthur More for the respondent.3 A carrier of passengers is bound to observe its established and advertised regulations for stopping, and the passenger is supposed to take passage with an understanding from which the law implies an agreement entitling him to the accommodations offered. (2 R. S., 687, § 42; Edw. on Bailments, 600; Ang. on Carrs., § 533; Story on Bailments, 796; T. W. and W. R. R. Co. v. Bradley, 5 Am. R., 71; 54 Ill., 19.) There was no contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. (Johnson v. H. R. R. R. Co., 20 N.Y. 65; Newson v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 29 Id., 383; Filer v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 49 Id., 47; Ernst v. H. R. R. R. Co., 35 Id., 27; Nichols v. Sixth Ave. R. R. Co., 38 Id., 131; Wylde v. No. R. R. Co. of N. J., 53 Id., 161; Clark v. Kernan, 4 E. D. S., 21; Hulbert v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 40 N.Y. 146; 36 Id., 39; Ill. C. R. R. Co. v. Abell, 5 Alb. L. J., 267; C. and Al. R. R. Co. v. Randolph, 5 Am. R., 60; 53 Ill., 510.) The question of negligence was properly

Page 558

submitted to the jury. (Wolfkiel v. Sixth Ave. R. R. Co., 38 N.Y. 49; Nichols v. Sixth Ave. R. R. Co., Id., 131; Ernst v. H. R. R. R. Co., 35 Id., 10; 39 Id., 68; 6 Alb. L. J., 210; Filer v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 49 N.Y. 50; Wylde v. No. R. R. Co. of N. J., 53 Id., 160; Barton v. R. R. Co., 3 Am. Railway R., 482; Eaton v. R. R. Co., 51 N.Y. 544; 58 Id., 455; Dickens v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 1 Keyes, 23.)

RAPALLO, J.

It is beyond question that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were caused by her attempting to...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP