Rogers v. Long Island R. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 October 1968
• Citation: 295 N.Y.S.2d 47,22 N.Y.2d 918
• Parties: , 242 N.E.2d 84 George A. ROGERS, Respondent v. The LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 47

295 N.Y.S.2d 47

22 N.Y.2d 918, 242 N.E.2d 84

George A. ROGERS, Respondent v. The LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 10, 1968.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 29 A.D.2d 47, 285 N.Y.S.2d 803.

George M. Onken, Jamaica (William A. Blank, Brooklyn, Robert Zicklin, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Sobel, Ross & Fliegel, New York City (Daniel Ross, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Passenger brought action against railroad for injuries sustained while alighting from train at station stop. The passenger testified that as the train approached the station the conductor, after announcing the stop opened the door to the platform and the platform trap-door guarding the steps, and that then the conductor stood aside as the train was coming to a stop and traveling very slowly, and that the passenger entered onto the platform and proceeded down the steps, and that the train momentarily stopped at the station, but that as passenger stood on the bottom step, the train started up and, after gaining considerable speed, stopped suddenly with a violent jerk, throwing the passenger against a stone wall on the far side of the platform.

There was evidence that on each end of the car there was posted a notice which read 'Please keep off the platform until the train stops.'

The railroad relied on Section 83 of the Railroad Law, Consol.Laws, c. 49, providing that no railroad shall be liable for any injury to any passenger while on the platform of a car in violation of printed regulations of the railroad. The railroad requested a charge that if the passenger went on the platform and down the steps in violation of the posted regulations, and such acts proximately cause his injuries, he could not recover. The court refused to give such instruction but charged the provisions of Section 83 of the Railroad Law and a violation of such regulation by the passenger could be considered along with other evidence in the case in determining whether the passenger was negligent. The railroad excepted to the failure of the court to charge in accordance with the railroad's request.

The Supreme Court, Trial Term, New York County, Darwin W. Telesford, J., entered a judgment in favor of the passenger.

The Appellate Division entered an order December 21, 1967 which affirmed the judgment of the Trial Term. The Appellate Division found that railroad's exception was not...