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|
Argued Dec. 10, 1875.
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
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.)
It is beyond question that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were caused by her attempting to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP