Holle v. Del., L. & W. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 April 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 27.,27. |
| Citation | 5 A.2d 874,122 N.J.L. 358 |
| Parties | HOLLE v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The violation of the statutory rule with respect to going upon the platform of a moving train does not bar recovery, where the train has vestibule equipment designed for the safety of the traveling public.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Essex County.
Action by Joseph Holle against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company for injuries sustained when plaintiff was thrown from a train of the defendant. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
John A. Laird, of Newark, for appellant.
Edward R. McGlynn and Joseph Weintraub, both of Newark, for respondent.
The defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $7,500.
Plaintiff was a traveling salesman. On January 8, 1935, he had been in New York City visiting customers and had had a few intoxicating drinks. Shortly after 10 P. M., he boarded the defendant's train at Hoboken in order to go to his home in East Orange. It was admitted that he was a passenger and used the defendant's line from New York to East Orange two or three times a year. He seated himself in the smoking car, but shortly before the train arrived at Newark he found the car uncomfortable. Arising, he started to find a seat in the next car. However, he was thrown from the train, he said, while attempting to enter the second car—the trap and vestibule doors being open—and his left foot was crushed, necessitating amputation. Strangely enough, he retained consciousness throughout the ordeal, and was soon found by the train crew on the roof of the Acme Freight building a short distance below the rails, to which point he had dragged himself.
The train on which the plaintiff was riding was equipped with trap and vestibule doors and when closed the platform was continuous. It appears that the side doors of the vestibule on the station side are kept open from Hoboken to Newark, although it was a simple matter to close them. After the train leaves Newark through the Oranges, the vestibule doors are kept open on the station side and closed on the opposite side therefrom. Some of the stations are on one side of the train while others are on the other. Plaintiff noticed the equipment and anticipated that the vestibule doors would be closed between stations as is usual on most trains. There was nothing to indicate that he was aware of the peculiar custom of failing to use the safety equipment provided from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Callaway v. Hart
...St. P. & S. S. Ry. v. Galvin, 6 Cir., 54 F.2d 202; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Shellenbarger, 9 Cir., 54 F.2d 606; Holle v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 122 N. J. L. 358, 5 A.2d 874; Daly v. Pryor, 197 Mo.App. 583, 198 S.W. 91. 4 Clanton v. Southern Ry. Co., 165 Ala. 485, 51 So. 616, 27 L.R.A.,N......
-
Barrie v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey
...83 A. 883 (E. & A.1912); Potter v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 113 N.J.L. 441, 174 A. 734 (E. & A.1934); and Holle v. D., L. & W.R.R. Co., 122 N.J.L. 358, 5 A.2d 874 (E. & A.1939). Contra: Wright v. Central R.R. Co. of N.J., 124 N.J.L. 113, 11 A.2d 20 (E. & A.1939) (decided by a 9--6 vote). ......
- Reinhard v. Egg Harbor City
-
Wright v. Cent. R. Co. of N.J.
...here is within the rule laid down by this court in Potter v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 113 N.J.L. 441, 174 A. 734; and Holle v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 122 N.J.L. 358, 5 A.2d 874. In the former case all of the vestibule doors were open on the westerly side of the train. A fact situation, somew......