Spencer v. Erie Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 17 January 1910
• Citation: Spencer v. Erie Railroad Company, 79 N.J.L. 5, 75 A. 155 (N.J. 1910)
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: MAE E. SPENCER v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY

75 A. 155

79 N.J.L. 5

SPENCER

v. ERIE R. CO.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Jan. 17, 1910.

Action by Mae E. Spencer against the Erie Railroad Company.Heard on defendant's rule to show cause.Rule made absolute.

Argued June term, 1909, before GUMMERE, C. J., and GARRISON and PARKER, JJ.

Collins & Corbin, for the rule.Eugene Emley, opposed.

GUMMERE, C. J.The plaintiff was a passenger on a train of the defendant company on May 11, 1908, coming from Pompton Plains to North Newark.When the train stopped at the latter station she came out upon the platform of the car with a friend, Miss Mandeville.Miss Mandeville got off first; the plaintiff following her.The plaintiff's description of the accident upon the witness stand was that, just as she was about to step down from the platform of the car upon the steps, the car "suddenly lurched with a backward and forward movement," which threw her upon the station platform.The only witness who at all corroborated her in her story was Miss Mandeville.This witness does not profess to have seen the accident; on the contrary, she admits that her back was toward the plaintiff as the latter was attempting to alight.But she says that she heard "a lurching as of brakes letting off steam," and turned around just in time to see Mrs. Spencer falling down the steps.She further says that she saw no motion of the car.On the part of the defendant the brakeman, who was standing close by at the time of the plaintiff's fall, contradicted her as to there having been any movement of the car.The engineer, the baggagemaster, and the conductor, also say that there was no movement of the car after the train came to a stop in the station.In addition both the plaintiff and Miss Mandeville signed written statements concerning the accident, shortly after its occurrence, which contradicted their testimony given on the witness stand.The plaintiff in her statement declared that she had no idea as to what caused, her fall, as the train was apparently lying still as she got off; that she did not notice anything on the platform of the car that would have caused her to fall.Miss Mandeville made two written statements.In the first she said that she was unable to state how the accident happened, and could not assign any cause for it in her second statement she said that she saw the plaintiff lying on the ground, and that the train was then standing still; that it did not move as she came down the steps, and so, if there was any...