Eaton v. New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 May 1909
• Citation: 195 N.Y. 267,88 N.E. 378
• Parties: EATON v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

195 N.Y. 267

88 N.E. 378

EATON

v.NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 4, 1909.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Action by John C. Eaton against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (125 App. Div. 54,109 N. Y. Supp. 419) affirming by divided court a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

A. H. Cowie, for appellant.

Frank C. Sargent, for respondent.

GRAY, J.

The plaintiff upon the day he met with the accident which is the subject of this action against the defendant was engaged in shipping produce in cars, and at the time was standing upon the platform of a station of the defendant's road, waiting for a freight train to pass by in order to cross the tracks. His complaint alleged that he was struck upon the head ‘by some sharp instrument, either of iron or wood, extending from, or hanging to,’ the train. He testified that the train approached upon the track nearest to the platform, and after the engine and ‘a couple of cars, or some cars,’ had passed him, ‘as he looked at the train, he saw something, the outline he could not exactly describe, and he couldn't tell what it was that hit him.’ Again, he describes himself as standing still, in the middle of the platform, ‘about halfway between the station and the end of the planks'; and says: ‘What struck me I don't know. When I saw the thing that I saw, the hazy outline of it, it seemed very close to me. * * * I couldn't say how near it was to me when I saw it, because as I saw it that was the last I can remember. I will swear positively that it was not the hazy outline of the locomotive, because the locomotive had passed me before that occurred.’ The plaintiff furnished no other evidence of what had caused him the injuries complained of. He was found lying between the tracks and the platform, with his skull fractured by a blow received upon the forehead, leaving a round wound ‘like a fifty cent piece.’ His left hip was also bruised. His hat was exhibited and showed a round hole through the front of the crown as its only damage. From the wound in the head were removed pieces of the hat and a splinter of wood. His son had come upon the platform with him, but he had gone a few feet away, and, his back being turned, did not see the accident. The train described was coming from the west, and there had about passed the station at the same time another train coming from the east. Nor did the plaintiff give any evidence showing or tending to show any negligence on the part of the defendant with respect to the management of the passing train from which he said his injuries were received, nor any evidence from which it might be inferred that some one of the cars may have been in a defective condition, unless, as it is contended, it is permissible from the plaintiff's story of his accident. He claims that the condition of his hat and of the wound in his head corroborates his account.

According to the defendant's evidence, as furnished by the engineer and fireman of the train, as they appoached the station, the plaintiff was seen standing on the edge of the platform, and, after the train coming in the other direction had passed, to step off, when he was almost instantly struck down by the cylinder head of their engine. Their train was passing at the rate of 30 miles an hour. The head brakeman testified that the train stopped and that he went back along the south side of the train, and did not see anything projecting from it. Further evidence was given by the defendant, illustrating the general situation at this station, which is of considerable importance. According to measurements made by a surveyor, the platform facing the tracks was over 7 1/2 feet wide, and its edge was distant from the nearest rail nearly 5 1/2 feet. The plaintiff, therefore, from his account must have been standing about nine feet from the track. To the west of the station platform, and distant 94 feet therefrom, was a mail crane, the post of which stood at a distance from the nearest rail of about 4 1/2 feet. Still further to the west, and [195 N.Y. 270]544 feet distant, was a highway bridge, whose abutment, at the height of 6 feet from the ground, was about the same distance from the nearest rail as was the station platform. If anything had been projecting from the train during its progress sufficiently to strike the plaintiff, it must have come in contact with the abutment or crane. But of that plaintiff offered no evidence. But, however incredible the occurrence, as narrated by the plaintiff, that was an argument to be addressed to the jury. The question presented upon the case is whether there was any evidence from which it could legitimately be inferred that the defendant had failed, in any respect, in the performance of its duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care that the plaintiff should not be exposed to unnecessary danger; for he was present as of right upon the defendant's platform. There was nothing to explain the possibility of such an occurrence, as the plaintiff attempted to describe, in any defective condition of the freight cars. The mind would be left to speculate upon such possibilities as of a brake rod, or of some part of the planking of a car, springing out of its place, or, equally, of some object caught, and thrown forcibly, from the track, or ground, by the fast-revolving wheels of the train. If anything had become displaced...