Egner v. Hudson & M. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 October 1932
• Docket Number: No. 125.,125.
• Citation: 162 A. 554
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: EGNER v. HUDSON & M. R. CO.

162 A. 554

EGNER

v. HUDSON & M. R. CO.

No. 125.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Oct. 17, 1932.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. When a plaintiff shows that injury has resulted from some defect in the appliances of the carrier, or through some act or omission of the carrier's servant which might have been prevented by due care, then the Jury have the right to infer negligence, unless the carrier proves that due care was exercised.

2. It is well recognized that exit from a crowded car is likely to be attended, in the case of any passenger, with some difficulty; and a common carrier is specifically bound to use a high degree of care to protect its passengers, not from crowding per se, but from danger likely to arise from crowding, which reasonable foresight should anticipate.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Emilie Egner against the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City, for appellant.

Pierson, Schroeder & Brand, of Hoboken, for respondent.

HETFIELD, J.

This is an action instituted by the plaintiff to recover for personal injuries sustained while a passenger on one of the defendant's trains, as it arrived at the Exchange Place Station, Jersey City. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals on the sole ground that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict in its favor, contending that there was no evidence of any negligence on the part of the defendant or its agents, and that the undisputed testimony indicates that the accident was caused by the unforeseen, sudden, and unexpected act of one or more passenger's, for which the defendant is not responsible. At the close of the trial, the only evidence submitted, with respect to negligence on the part of the defendant, was the uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiff and a friend who was with her at the time of the accident which discloses that on March 4, 1930, the plaintiff and said friend, Dorothy Dolan, boarded a train of the defendant at about 5:15 p. m., at Cortland street New York, and paid her fare, intending to travel to the Erie Station, at Jersey City. There were no vacant seats, and the plaintiff was compelled to stand. Before it left the Cortland Street Station, the train, as well as the outside vestibule, was so crowded that the plaintiff and her companion, standing in the vestibule, were pushed against the door opposite the one by which they had entered the train....