Adolph v. Central Park, North & East River Railroad

76 N.Y. 530, 1879 N.Y. LEXIS 532
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 1, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by45 cases

This text of 76 N.Y. 530 (Adolph v. Central Park, North & East River Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adolph v. Central Park, North & East River Railroad, 76 N.Y. 530, 1879 N.Y. LEXIS 532 (N.Y. 1879).

Opinions

Folger, J.

We are of the opinion, that there was matter for the jury, upon the question, of the negligence of the defendant’s servant, and that of the contributory negligence *533 of the plaintiff. It is not needful to add anything on these heads, to what was said by Earl, C., when this case was last in this court; (65 N. Y., 554.) The testimony is not so changed on the now trial as to make that saying now inapplicable.

Wo do not think that there was error, in taking the testimony of Avhat Avas lying on the ground, on the east side of the avenue. If thereby the plaintiff was stopped from going off the railway track on that side, the question of his negligence, Avas narrowed to his acts or omissions upon the side to which he did turn.

The requests to charge, and the exceptions grovong there-out, may not be so curtly dealt with.

There are three classes of ways used for travel, upon which, to a greater or less extent, every one has a right to be, Avith his oavh team and carriage. There is the common highway or street; there is the horse railway, laid in the street of a city, toAvn or village ; and there is the railway of greater length, through the land, along Avhich cars are hauled by the poAver of steam. The right of any one to be upon, either of these Avays is different in its nature and extent; and the duty Avhich one, while on it, owes to others is different; and the duty in the use grows greater, as the right to use gets smaller. Each individual of the entire public, as a general rule and in the absence of especial regulation by law, has as good right to be upon the common street or highway as any other individual thereof; yet each must use this right in a reasonable manner, so as to give a like reasonable use to every other. The rights are equal, and the duties in the use thereof are equally great and pressing. Each must look out for meeting another; and by turning out in time, on such hand, and so far as the law has prescribed, take care to avoid doing harm. One person may choose to go at a slow pace along the Avay, and has a right so to go. Another may choose to go at a faster pace, and has a right so to go. Yet each must exercise his right, so as not unnecessarily to abridge the use by the other of his right. The one choosing to go *534 fast may turn out and go past the one choosing to go slow, but nmst keep clear of him in doing it. The one choosing to go slow may keep in the beaten track, and is not bound to give way for the other to pass, if there be room on cither hand for the other to go by, without way being given ; iior is he bound to give way, where there is not space for him so to do, or it may not be done safely. He has the first right of way, under such circumstances, over so much space of road as his team and vehicle cover at the moment. Hence, he is not bound to look back, or to listen for the coming of another, so as to make clear the way before liim. But if, by keeping in his place, he will stop the faster driver from passing, when, by turning aside, without meeting obstruction or danger in doing so, he could give way for passage, he is bound to do so, on being asked to. His duty is summed up, in keeping on his way, avoiding collision with those whom he meets, and in yielding way enough for those behind him to pass, when it is needful and practicable so to do, and he is thereunto requested. His duty has its measure of extent, from the measure of his right upon the road, which is fully equal to that of any one else using it.

The right of every one of the public to be upon the track of what we will call a steam railway, is much more restricted. For the purposes of this case, it may bo said to be confined to crossing over that track, where it intersects any of the common streets or highways, and not at all to passing along it, in the direction in which it is laid. It has been held that the engine and car of the railway corporation has the exclusive right to the' track as a whole, and the first right to the use of the track at the place of intersection; and that it is the duty of the person drawing near to a crossing, to look each way along the track, and to listen, for the coming of an engine and train. Ho is not privileged to wait for a signal or request from the driver of the engine, before he sets about to leave the passage clear along the track. As he is also on a common highway, he has likewise upon him the duties of a traveler thereupon, to avoid doing harm to other *535 like travelers. Besides this, he has scarcely any other duty, at that juncture, than to keep entirely off the track, save at the crossing, and there to take care, with all his senses and all his powers, that he do not get in the way of a coming engine and train: He may not stop on it, if a stoppage may be possibly avoided. He may not waste time in crossing. He must be as sure as he may be from sight and hearing, that it is prudent to cross at that moment, and then he must hasten over. The reason of this, springs from the nature, purpose and conditions of travel, upon railways where steam is the motor. The private person has a very limited right upon the railway track. The railway coi’poration has the exclusive ownership and right of the track, save at the crossings of highways, and in streets. The public requirements are for a high rate of speed, to be attained only with powerful engines incapable of being quickly stopped or controlled. .There is an overweening necessity for an absolutely clear track, and a sole and exclusive. use of it, the whole time. So, for the public use and the good of the greater number, individual right is of necessity somewhat abridged, and a higher degree of care and attention is exacted from the member of the community then acting singly.

The street railway, used with cars drawn by horses, holds a place between the two other classes. One of the public, has a right to drive his team and vehicle upon the track of such a railway, and to pass along it lengthwise of it, as well as to cross it at the intersection of streets. As others of the public have the same right, he owes to them the same duty, when about to meet, which he does when on an ordinary highway or street. So that he must, some of the time, keep his senses upon what is in front of him. But his and their right to bo on the track and passing along it, is abridged from what it would be on a highway. Hence, his duty is enlarged. The railway company has the exclusive right to any part of the track over which, at the time, its horses and car are passing or just about to pass, and all others then upon it there, are bound to leave it, then and there, to the *536 unrestricted uso of tho company.' This right to the use of so much of the public street, modified from both that to the highway and to the steam railway crossing, is because tho car can move to and fro only on tho parallel lines of rail laid for it, and cannot turn from them ; so that others must get out of its way yet it may not move over the rails, at" a rate of speed faster than that ordinarily reached by horses drawing loads of passengers, while the motive power is under such control, as easily to be slackened in speed, and quickly stopped entirely; so that others may also use the track, without risk of harm, if all concerned are ordinarily prudent and careful.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pearce v. Rodell
276 N.W. 883 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1937)
Kirl v. Zinner
264 N.W. 391 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1936)
Simmons v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.
212 P. 637 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Borden's Condensed Milk Co. v. Mosby
250 F. 839 (Second Circuit, 1918)
J. Samuels & Bro., Inc. v. Rhode Island Co.
100 A. 402 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1917)
Gautier v. Lange
89 Misc. 372 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
McCormick v. Ottumwa Railway & Light Co.
124 N.W. 889 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1910)
Denver City Tramway Co. v. Wright
107 P. 1074 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1909)
Mark v. . Fritsch
88 N.E. 380 (New York Court of Appeals, 1909)
Philbin v. Denver City Tramway Co.
36 Colo. 331 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1906)
Richardson v. Davis
102 N.W. 868 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1905)
Graham v. Evening Press Co.
97 N.W. 697 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1903)
Maas v. Fauser
36 Misc. 813 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Countryman v. Fonda, Johnstown & Gloversville Railroad
59 N.E. 822 (New York Court of Appeals, 1901)
Cohen v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
34 Misc. 186 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Mapes v. Union Railroad
67 N.Y.S. 358 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Lewis v. Cincinnati Street Ry. Co.
8 Ohio N.P. 417 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County, 1900)
Mapes v. Union Railway Co.
56 A.D. 508 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Schilling v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
47 A.D. 500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Hill v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
30 Misc. 440 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 N.Y. 530, 1879 N.Y. LEXIS 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adolph-v-central-park-north-east-river-railroad-ny-1879.