Nazarro v. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 July 1940
• Docket Number: No. 7.,7.
• Citation: 125 N.J.L. 108,14 A.2d 521
• Parties: NAZARRO et al. v. HUDSON & MANHATTAN R. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

14 A.2d 521

125 N.J.L. 108

NAZARRO et al.

v. HUDSON & MANHATTAN R. CO.

No. 7.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

July 22, 1940.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hudson County.

Action by Flora Nazarro and another against the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Company to recover damages for injuries sustained by the named plaintiff when she was pushed through door of train by crowd of passengers on platform. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued May term, 1940, before BROGAN, C. J., and PARKER and PERSKIE,

Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City (Edward A. Markley and Charles W. Broadhurst, both of Jersey City, of counsel), for appellant.

Bernard German, of Jersey City (Thomas F. Doyle, of Jersey City, of counsel), for appellees.

PERSKIE, Justice.

The single question argued and requiring decision is whether, as appellant claims, the trial judge erred in refusing to grant its motion to direct a verdict in its favor on the ground that there was no proof of any negligence on its part which was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries.

The proofs which give rise to the stated question disclose that plaintiff Flora Nazarro resides in Jersey City, N. J., and works in New York City, N. Y. She was a regular commuter between the two points. On January 19, 1938, about 4:45 p. m., after having paid the required fare at defendant's Cortland Street station, New York City, she went to the platform to take a train to Journal Square, Jersey City. The regular schedule of trains was somewhat delayed and the platform became extremely overcrowded with passengers. As the proper train arrived and the doors thereof were opened for passengers to enter therein, plaintiff was pushed though the door of the train as a result of which she fell and sustained injuries for which she brought suit, her husband joining his action for damages per quod.

The cause was submitted to the jury with a very comprehensive, fair and accurate charge. The jury returned a verdict of $2,000 in favor of the wife and a verdict of $636 in favor of the husband, against defendant. It is the judgment, based on the verdict so returned, which defendant here urges should, for the reason first stated, be reversed. We fail to perceive any merit to appellant's argument.

At the outset we mark the fact that by concession of counsel for the respective parties this case was tried upon the theory that "the common law standard of duty (under the circumstances exhibited) in the State of New York was the same as the common law standard of duty in the State of New Jersey." The theory of the suit, so adopted and pursued, is binding on the parties here. Lastowski v. Lawnicki, 115 N.J.L. 230, 234, 179 A. 266; Saum v. Proudfit, 122 N.J.L. 96, 4 A.2d 35.

In Thurber v. Skouras Theatres Corp., 112 N.J.L. 385, 170 A. 863, the Supreme Court held that a mere crowded condition in itself did not constitute actionable negligence. That holding, however, expressly pointed out the class of cases in which the injurious consequences of failure to control crowds may create liability. Hansen v. Northern Jersey Street Ry. Co., 64 N.J.L. 686, 46 A. 718; Sandler v. Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Co., 151 A. 99, 8 N.J.Misc. 537; Egner v. Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Co., 109 N.J.L. 367, 162 A. 554. These cases, as their titles indicate, are between passengers and carriers. In such cases liability, if any, is predicated not on a breach of duty by overcrowding but rather on a breach of duty to use care to avoid the dangers likely to arise therefrom at entrances and exits of carrier's cars. Thus, in the Hansen case, our Court of Errors and Appeals imposed the duty upon a carrier to protect its passengers from foreseeable dangers. Amplifying that holding the court said (64 N.J.L....