Traphagen v. Erie R. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 November 1906
• Citation: 73 N.J.L. 759,64 A. 1072
• Parties: TRAPHAGEN v. ERIE R. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

64 A. 1072

73 N.J.L. 759

TRAPHAGEN

v. ERIE R. CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 19, 1906.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Supreme Court

Action by Marguerite C. Traphagen against the Erie Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Warren Dixon, for plaintiff in error. Wm. H. Corbin and George S. Hobart, for defendant in error.

SWAYZE, J. The plaintiff was injured May 22, 1900, while alighting from a passenger coach of the defendant at Ridgefield. The negligence relied on, as stated in the plaintiff's brief, is threefold: Stopping the car at a point beyond the platform; failure of the train crew to assist the plaintiff to alight; and a structural defect in the step of the car. The plaintiff's own account of the accident is as follows: "I took hold of the railing with my right hand, and I put my right foot down first, but as I didn't reach the ground I slipped forward and my left foot slipped along until it caught at my heel which drew up my knee, and I came bent down on my knee which broke the knee pan." In answer to a subsequent question she said: "Why, I simply attempted to step down, and when I found I couldn't reach the ground, why, I fell forward." There is no other account of the accident. It happened shortly after 12 o'clock on "a very clear, beautiful day." There was evidence that the step was about 24 to 28 inches from the ground, but this was a mere estimate of the witness, not an actual measurement. A question was asked as to the effort required of an average adult in alighting from such a step, but the question was withdrawn without being answered, and the same witness testified that there was nothing unusual about this car in that respect. Two gentlemen went down the same steps just ahead of the plaintiff, and, as far as the case shows, alighted without difficulty. There was also evidence that a footstool was often placed to aid passengers to alight, and generally some one helped the passengers off. At the close of the plaintiff's case the trial judge ordered a nonsuit.

The plaintiff's evidence makes it clear that her injury is not to be attributed to the condition of the ground where she undertook to alight, but to her heel catching on the step before she touched the ground, as she herself testified the cause of her fall was that she couldn't touch the ground with her foot. It is therefore unnecessary to decide whether or not such a landing place as the company provided, was adequate. The failure to provide a footstool and to assist the plaintiff in alighting was obvious to the plaintiff, and, if she had desired such assistance, she should have at least made her desire known to the conductor who was close at hand. No liability attaches to the defendant by reason of these circumstances.

The only point that...