Anderson v. Erie R. Co.
Citation | 223 N.Y. 277,119 N.E. 557 |
Parties | ANDERSON v. ERIE R. CO. |
Decision Date | 23 April 1918 |
Court | New York Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
Action by Julia M. Anderson, as administratrix, etc., against the Erie Railroad Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (171 App. Div. 687,157 N. Y. Supp. 740), reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff, the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
F. W. Clifford, of Owego, for appellant.
Halsey Sayles, of Elmira, for respondent.
Plaintiff's intestate, a clergyman, obtained from defendant, a written order that at any time during the year 1913 its agents would sell to him, for his personal use, a clerical ticket subject to the conditions on the back thereof. On the 10th of November, 1913, he presented this order to and purchased from defendant's agent at Elmira, N. Y., a ticket over defendant's road from that place to Leroy, N. Y., for which he paid $1.20 the regular fare being $2.35. The condition on the back of the ticket was:
The intestate having agreed to the condition, as evidenced by his signature thereto, the ticket was delivered to him, and while en route the car in which he was riding was derailed and he was killed. This action was brought to recover the damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of his death. Plaintiff had a verdict for a substantial sum, upon which judgment was entered. An appeal was taken to the Appellate Division, where the judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered. Plaintiff gave the usual stipulation and appeals to this court.
[1] The sole question presented by the appeal is whether the release from liability for negligence given by plaintiff's intestate to defendant, in consideration of the reduced rate at which the ticket was sold to him, prevents a recovery. Had the intestate, at the time of the accident, been traveling on a pass, there could be but one answer to the question. A recovery could not be had. This court settled that question over half a century ago. Wells v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 181. It was there specifically held that a contract between a railroad corporation and a person traveling on a pass, by which the former was exempted from liability for the negligence of its agents or servants for an injury to the latter, was not against public policy, and was a valid agreement which would be enforced when called in question. The rule as thus established has since been followed in this state. Perkins v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 196, 82 Am. Dec. 281;Bissell v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 442, 82 Am. Dec. 369;Poucher v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 263, 10 Am. Rep. 364;Seybolt v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 95 N. Y. 562, 47 Am. Rep. 75;Ulrich v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 108 N. Y. 80, 15 N. E. 60,2 Am. St. Rep. 369;Hodge v. Rutland R. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 142,97 N. Y. Supp. 1107, affirmed 194 N. Y. 570, 88 N. E. 1121;Fish v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 211 N. Y. 374, 105 N. E. 661. It is also the rule which has been adopted in many of the other states, of which see the following: Rogers v. Kennebec Steamboat Co., 86 Me. 261, 29 Atl. 1069,25 L. R. A. 491;Quimby v. Boston & Main R. R. Co., 150 Mass. 365, 23 N. E. 205,5 L. R. A. 846;Dugan v. Blue Hill Street Ry., 193 Mass. 431, 79 N. E. 748;Griswold v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co., 53 Conn. 371, 4 Atl. 261,55 Am. Rep. 115;Kinney v. Central R. R. Co., 34 N. J. Law, 513, 3 Am. Rep. 265;Payne v. T. H. & I. Ry. Co., 157 Ind. 616, 62 N. E. 472,56 L. R. A. 472. The same rule prevails in the Supreme Court of the United States. B. & O. Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Voigt, 176 U. S. 498, 20 Sup. Ct. 385, 44 L. Ed. 560;Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Adams, 192 U. S. 440, 24 Sup. Ct. 408, 48 L. Ed. 513;Boering v. Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co., 193 U. S. 442, 24 Sup. Ct. 515, 48 L. Ed. 742;Charleston & Western Carolina Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 234 U. S. 576, 34 Sup. Ct. 964, 58 L. Ed. 1476. The English decisions are to the same effect. McCawley v. Furness Ry. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 57; Hall v. Northwestern Ry. Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 437.
Mr. Justice Brewer in Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Adams, 192 U. S. 440, 24 Sup. Ct. 408, 48 L. Ed. 513, tersely stated the reason for the rule as follows:
192 U. S. 453,24 Sup. Ct. 411,48 L. Ed. 513.
Does an agreement to sell a ticket at a reduced rate of fare, in consideration of exemption from liability in case of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lee v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York
...the railroad offered a full price ticket with complete protection and a reduced price ticket with no protection (Anderson v. Erie R. R. Co., 223 N.Y. 277, 119 N.E. 557; cf. Lebron v. New York City Transit Authority, 44 N.Y.2d 782, 406 N.Y.S.2d 38, 377 N.E.2d 482 (dec. April 27, 1978); Resta......
-
Alexander v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
...and transportation bought at a reduced fare. The defendant, adopting the view expressed by a majority opinion in Anderson v. Erie R. Co. (N. Y.), 119 N.E. 557, urges in argument that, as in the granting of transportation, so in the granting of transportation at a reduced fare, the concessio......
-
Alexander v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
...Int. Com. Com. Conference Rulings, No. 208, sec. D; Kansas City Co. Ry. v. Van Zant, 260 U.S. 459 (reversing 289 Mo. 163); Anderson v. Erie R. Co. (N.Y.), 119 N.E. 557; Mosher v. Railroad, 127 U.S. 390; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Prude, 265 U.S. 99 (reversing 156 Ark. 583, 247 S.W. 785); Bitterman ......
-
Belmet Products, Inc. v. Merit Enterprises, Inc.
...common carrier (Conklin v. Canadian-Colonial Airways, 266 N.Y. 244, 194 N.E. 692) unless a reduced fare was charged (Anderson v. Erie R. R. Co., 223 N.Y. 277, 119 N.E. 557); or in the contract of a public utility under a duty to furnish telephone service (Emery v. Rochester Telephone Corp.,......