Brady v. Manhattan Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 April 1891
• Citation: 27 N.E. 368,127 N.Y. 46
• Parties: BRADY v. MANHATTAN RY. CO.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

127 N.Y. 46

27 N.E. 368

BRADY

v.MANHATTAN RY. CO.

Court of Appeals of New York,

Second Division.

April 28, 1891.

Appeal from common pleas of New York city and county, general term.

VANN, J., dissenting.

Samuel Blythe Rogers, for appellant.

Peter A. Hendrick, for respondent.

PARKER, J.

The recovery had was for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while stepping off defendant's cars to the platform at the station situated at the intersection of Third avenue and Forty-Second street. The plaintiff testified that after the train had stopped in front of the platform of the station for the exit of passengers the doors and gates of the car in which she had been riding were opened, and the passengers notified to leave the car; that thereupon, preceded by one of her companions, she attempted to pass from the car to the platform, but in so doing stepped between the platform of the car and the platform of the station, and fell with great force, and as a result one leg was broken, and other severe injuries sustained. The plaintiff's contention on the trial was that this accident was wholly due to the negligence of the defendant in that it so constructed the platform as to cause a space of greater width between the car and the station platform than was necessary for the operation of its trains, and that by reason thereof it was unsafe and dangerous to passengers passing to and from the station platform and the cars. With the avowed object of showing that such space was unsafe and dangerous to passengers, and also for the purpose of charging the defendant with notice of the dangerous character of the facilities provided for the entrance and exit of passengers, the plaintiff gave evidence tending to show the happening of accidents at other stations on the elevated roads. Whether some of the evidence thus adduced was improperly received we shall now consider. Against the defendant's objection and exception the witness Higgins was permitted to testify: ‘Question. Prior to March 16, 1887, had you ever, in passing from the elevated cars to an elevated station platform, yourself stepped between the platforms? Answer. Yes, sir. Q. At what station was it? A. Firty-Third street and Eighth avenue. * * * At Fifty-Third street and Eighth avenue the station platform is practically a straight line. I observed the distance that existed between the car platform and the station platform on the occasion when I passed through. Q. From your recollection and observation at the time, what was the distance? [Referring to width of space between car and platform.] A. Between eight and nine inches.’ The witness Spatz also testified: ‘Q. State whether or not, prior to March 16, 1887, you knew of any person, in passing from the cars to the station platform, or from the station platform to the cars, to step into the space between the station platform and the platform of the car. A. Yes, sir. Q. Where and when? A. Seventy-Sixth street and Third avenue. Q. Whereabouts, and how often? A. In different times in different months. Q. If you can remember any one station or any one time, give us that time and place. A. Franklin square. The platform there, which adjoins the car platform, is not a straight line. Q. How wide was the distance between the station platform and the car platform where that occurred? A. I should say from six to eight inches. Q. Before March 16, 1887, state some one case when a person stepped between the car platform and the station platform. A. At Chatham square. As far as I can recollect that was about March, 1887. I cannot remember now whether it was before the 16th of March. It was in March, or in that direction. I think it was in the early part of the month. That is the best of my remembrance. Yes, sir. Q. And is the platform of that Chatham-Square station a straight line? A. No, sir.’ The witness further testified that he was unable to remember any other case occurring before that time. It was proper for the plaintiff to show the occurrence of other accidents at the station where the accident happened, for the purpose of making it appear that the defendant had been warned of the dangerous character of the facilities provided by it for the exit of passengers, if dangerous they were. But it was not proper to prove the happening of accidents at other stations in the absence of evidence tending to show that the conditions were similar. The details of the accidents testified to, with the exception of the individual case of the witness Higgins, were...