Graham v. Manhattan Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 April 1896
• Citation: 43 N.E. 917,149 N.Y. 336
• Parties: GRAHAM v. MANHATTAN RY. CO.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

149 N.Y. 336

43 N.E. 917

GRAHAM

v.MANHATTAN RY. CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 28, 1896.

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

Action by Henry Graham against the Manhattan Railway Company for personal injuries. From a judgment of the general term (28 N. Y. Supp. 739) affirming a judgment for defendant, and from an order affirming the denial of a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Andrews, C. J., and Gray and Bartlett, JJ., dissenting.

Gilbert D. Lamb, for appellant.

Edward B. Thomas, for respondent.

MARTIN, J.

On November 19, 1892, the plaintiff was injured while a passenger upon one of the defendant's trains. Early in the evening of that day he went to the defendant's station at Fifty-Ninth street, purchased a ticket, and passed to the platform for the purpose of boarding an approaching train. When the train reached the station the platforms of the cars were crowded with passengers. One of the guards employed upon the train, who saw the plaintiff standing at the station, said: ‘Hurry up. Get on, if you are going. Get on. We cannot wait all night.’ In compliance with that suggestion the plaintiff boarded the train, and it started. Owing to the crowded condition of its platform, the gate upon the car was not closed at any time before the accident. The plaintiff was required to remain upon the platform, as the crowd in the car prevented his occupying any other position. At the corner of Fifty-Third street and Ninth avenue the defendant's road curves to the east, and at the junction of Fifty-Third street and Eighth avenue there is a station, where the train stopped; and the plaintiff stepped to the platform to enable a passenger to get off, after which he immediately returned to his former position on the car. The streets are nearly at right angles at the corner of Fifty-Third street and Sixth avenue, and the railroad turns south, on a short and sharp curve, into Sixth avenue. At that point the guard, whose position was between the car upon which the plaintiff was riding and the one in the rear, had a quarrel with one of the passengers, who was intoxicated, and struck at him, the effect of which was to cause a movement of the crowd upon the platform of the car that tended to crowd the plaintiff from the train, whereupon he made a quick, involuntary movement with his left hand to grasp the railing behind him. At that moment his arm was caught between the iron railings of the car upon which he was riding and the one immediately in the rear, as they came nearly together in rounding this curve. The plaintiff's arm was broken, and he sustained injuries of a somewhat serious character. Before the injury the plaintiff had no knowledge that any danger was to be apprehended from the proximity of these railings when the train was making the curve at this point in the defendant's road, nor was he informed by any of the defendant's employés of any such danger. Upon his cross-examination he, however, testified that when he returned to the car he knew the position upon the crowded platform was dangerous. It is manifest, therefore, that the plaintiff at that time recognized his peril, so far as it arose from a crowded condition of the car and platform, but had no reason to apprehend any danger of the character of that which was the immediate cause of his injury. The action was for negligence. Upon the trial the plaintiff was nonsuited. The motion was based upon the ground that he had not established a cause of action, in that he had failed to prove negligence upon the part of the defendant, and absence of negligence upon his own part. To this ruling the plaintiff duly excepted. Upon appeal to the general term the judgment was affirmed upon the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in returning to the car after he had alighted at the station at Fifty-Third street and Eighth avenue.

Thus, the question is presented whether the evidence, and any proper inferences that might have been drawn from it, were sufficient to justify the court in submitting the questions of the defendant's negligence, and the plaintiff's freedom from contributory negligence, to the jury, for its determination. If the proof was such as to authorize the court to hold, as a matter of law, either that the defendant was free from negligence, or that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, then the judgment must be affirmed. The stopping of the train a Fifty-Ninth street was an invitation to the plaintiff to take passage thereon. There was also an express invitation by one of the defendant's employés. The defendant was therefore bound to furnish the plaintiff a safe place to ride. Proof of the omission to do so was evidence tending to show the defendant's negligence. Werle v. Railroad Co., 98 N. Y. 650. Again, the defendant's disregard of the statute which required gates upon every passenger car used upon its elevated railroad, and that they should be kept closed while the car...