Sandler v. Hudson & M. R. Co., No. 63.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation151 A. 99
PartiesSANDLER et al. v. HUDSON & M. R. CO.
Docket NumberNo. 63.
Decision Date01 July 1930
151 A. 99

SANDLER et al.
v.
HUDSON & M. R. CO.

No. 63.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

July 1, 1930.


151 A. 100

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hudson County.

Action by Mildred Sandler, by her next friend, and another, against the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Company. From judgments for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued January term, 1930, before GUMMERE, C. J., and CAMPBELL, J.

Edward A. Markley, of Jersey City, for appellant.

Fredman & Fredman, of Jersey City, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff below, Mildred Sandler, a young woman of twenty years of age, was injured at the Journal Square Station, Jersey City, of the defendant-appellant as she was about to board an uptown New York train on September 28, 1928, at about 8:10 a. m. She has a judgment for $1,300, and her father, the other plaintiff below, for $50, as a result of verdicts of a jury in the trial of an action for damages resulting from the alleged negligence of the appellant.

The defendant below appeals, and seeks a reversal of such judgments upon fifteen grounds argued under eleven heads or points.

(1) The first ground is that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict in favor of the appellant. This is urged upon authority of Miller v. West Jersey and Seashore R. R. Co., 71 N. J. Law, 363, 59 A. 13, affirmed 79 N. J. law, 499, 76 A. 973; Lehberger v. Public Service, 79 N. J. Law, 134, 74 A. 272; Hoff v. Public Service, 91 N. J. Law, 641, 103 A. 209, 15 A. L. R. 860; Kalleberg v. Raritan, etc., R. R. Co., 91 N. J. Law, 222, 102 A. 350; Lerner v. Public Service, 83 N. J. Law, 64, 84 A. 618; and Exton v. Central R. R. Co., 62 N. J. Law, 7, 42 A. 486, 56 L. R. A. 508.

The principle running through all of these cases is that a common carrier of passengers must use reasonable care to protect passengers from dangers known, or which ought to be known, or anticipated by reasonable foresight. Such rule is firmly established.

But the situation in the present case is not one where some unexpected and unforeseen happening or act of a fellow passenger was, necessarily, the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff, below. The proofs here were that from 8 a. m. to 8:45 a. m., or thereabouts, was the so-called "rush" period at this station; that large crowds of passengers were usually and regularly to be found there during that time, and, as trains came in, the crowds of passengers would rush to the cars to gain entrance. This the proofs would tend to show was the condition on the morning in question. It further appears that, ordinarily, the appellant at that time in the day and on that platform, had four or five guards to control the crowd. Although appellant sought to establish that guards to this number were on duty on this platform on the morning in question, there is also proof, if believed, that there were none there at the time of the happening complained of, and that the crowd of passengers, uncontrolled, pushed and shoved each other in an effort to board the train, and that the plaintiff was pushed and carried along to the edge of the platform and off of it and into a space between two cars of a train then in the station.

Not only was there proof upon the part of the appellant that the usual number of guards were on duty at the time, but that one of these, whose station was at the point where plaintiff claimed to have been injured, testified that he was on duty, at his post, and

151 A. 101

that he saw no rushing, pushing, or disorder, and saw no one injured.

Under such condition of proofs a jury question was undoubtedly presented, and it was open to the jury to find that the appellant was or was not negligent, in not using reasonable care to provide guards or platform men of a reasonably sufficient number, and that, if such men and to such number were actually on duty, then whether or not they exercised due care for the safety of the passengers. We think, therefore, that there was no error in refusing to direct a verdict upon this ground.

(2) It was error to refuse to direct a verdict in favor of appellant because no negligenpe, if any was established, was the proximate cause of the happening complained of. This is urged upon the idea or theory that the happening was a sudden, unexpected, and extraordinary one, which the defendant company, in the exercise of reasonable care, was not called...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 26, 1997
    ...Jersey & Seashore R.R. Co., 96 N.J.L. 492, 494 [115 A. 372] (E. & A.1921); Sandler v. Hudson & Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J. Misc. 537, 539, 151 A. 99 (Sup.Ct.1930), aff'd. 108 N.J.L. 203 [156 A. 459] (E. & A. 1931); Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 219 [43 A.2d 828] (Sup.Ct.......
  • Goldberg v. Housing Authority of City of Newark, No. A--3
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1962
    ...aware of the antics of the schoolboys involved but did nothing to stop them. In Sandler v. Hudson & Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 537, 151 A. 99 (Sup.Ct.1930), affirmed, 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459 (E. & A. 1931), a passenger was injured by the crush of the crowd and the issue was the suff......
  • Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City, No. A--653
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • June 30, 1964
    ...substantially the same effect. Page 422 A somewhat similar result was reached in Sandler v. Hudson and Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 537, 151 A. 99 (Sup.Ct.1930), affirmed 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459 (E. & A.1931), where it appeared that large crowds of passengers usually and regularly con......
  • Lieberman v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • April 14, 1993
    ...a passenger and danger is preventable by exercise of due care, carrier is liable); Sandler v. Hudson & Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 537, 151 A. 99 aff'd, 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459 (E. & A.1931) (holding carrier liable when one passenger pushed another between the train and platform [622......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 26, 1997
    ...Jersey & Seashore R.R. Co., 96 N.J.L. 492, 494 [115 A. 372] (E. & A.1921); Sandler v. Hudson & Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J. Misc. 537, 539, 151 A. 99 (Sup.Ct.1930), aff'd. 108 N.J.L. 203 [156 A. 459] (E. & A. 1931); Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 219 [43 A.2d 828] (Sup.Ct.......
  • Goldberg v. Housing Authority of City of Newark, No. A--3
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1962
    ...aware of the antics of the schoolboys involved but did nothing to stop them. In Sandler v. Hudson & Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 537, 151 A. 99 (Sup.Ct.1930), affirmed, 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459 (E. & A. 1931), a passenger was injured by the crush of the crowd and the issue was the suff......
  • Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City, No. A--653
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • June 30, 1964
    ...substantially the same effect. Page 422 A somewhat similar result was reached in Sandler v. Hudson and Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 537, 151 A. 99 (Sup.Ct.1930), affirmed 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459 (E. & A.1931), where it appeared that large crowds of passengers usually and regularly con......
  • Lieberman v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • April 14, 1993
    ...a passenger and danger is preventable by exercise of due care, carrier is liable); Sandler v. Hudson & Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 537, 151 A. 99 aff'd, 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459 (E. & A.1931) (holding carrier liable when one passenger pushed another between the train and platform [622......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT