Mason v. Erie R. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 November 1907
• Parties: MASON v. ERIE R. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

68 A. 105

75 N.J.L. 521

MASON

v. ERIE R. CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 18, 1907.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to the Supreme Court.

Action by John G. Mason against the Erie Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

The defendant in error recovered a verdict for personal injuries sustained by him near the station known as "River Street," in the city of Paterson, at about 6 o'clock in the evening of January 16, 1906. He had been a passenger on the train of the defendant from Jersey City to River street. The station building at River street is on the right-hand or easterly side of the north-bound track. River street crosses the railroad tracks at an angle, the station building being located to the north of the street, and to the east of the tracks, a short distance from the crossing. The station platform extends in a southerly direction as far as the crossing; the platform being on the same level as the street, and the crossing planked so that passengers can alight, not only on the station platform proper, but also directly on the street. The distance from the north end of the station platform to the south side of River street is 420 feet; the length of the station platform being about 220 feet. The train on which plaintiff was riding had eight passenger cars, and, when it stopped at River street station, the engine was opposite the north end of the platform, and plaintiff was in the second car from the last. When the train was approaching the station, the brakeman walked forward through the car and called out "River street!" thereupon plaintiff walked to the rear platform of the car in which he was riding, stepped down on the east or station side, and then started to walk across a little ditch alongside the track, and tripped over something, and, on looking back, saw that there was a pile of rails lying in the ditch at the place where he had fallen. For injuries received by this fall the plaintiff sued for damages in the present action. At the trial the court charged the jury: "It is undoubtedly the duty under the law of this defendant, as well as all railroads, to provide a reasonably safe place for its passengers to alight from its train. There is no question about that. * * * It must provide a reasonably safe place for its passengers to alight from its train." The trial court also charged as follows: "There has been a claim made here for damages for loss of business profits, but the evidence is meager as to that. There has been evidence as to what the receipts of the partnership of which he was a member had been, and of how much they lessened after this accident; but that does not establish the profit or the loss. Some businesses are conducted at a profit and others at a loss. There is no presumption of law that a business is profitable. Common experience tells us that it depends on circumstances. If you allow him anything for damages by way of losses of profits, you ought to be satisfied from the evidence that there is something to go by, but I confess I cannot see anything myself. You are not here to guess. * * * The plaintiff claims there was a loss of profits, and the burden of proof is upon him to prove what that loss of profit was." When the court was asked to allow an exception to this part of the charge, the following colloquy between counsel took place:

"Mr. Gourley (counsel for plaintiff): That I understand distinctly was not charged.

"Mr. Collins (counsel for defendant): The court did not refuse to allow the jury to find any damages for that. Our point is that the court should have charged distinctly...