Beecher v. . Long Island R.R. Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Beecher v. . Long Island R.R. Co.

55 N.E. 899, 161 N.Y. 222, 15 E.H. Smith 222, 1900 N.Y. LEXIS 1434

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 9, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 55 N.E. 899 (Beecher v. . Long Island R.R. Co.) 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

Beecher v. . Long Island R.R. Co., 55 N.E. 899, 161 N.Y. 222, 15 E.H. Smith 222, 1900 N.Y. LEXIS 1434 (N.Y. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Parker, Ch. J.

The plaintiff’s testator having neither looked nor listened as the train approached which caused his death, the query is whether the court must say that his negligence contributed to the result, or the jury may say that it did not.

The jury were at liberty to find from the evidence before it that the defendant had started the train on the south track substantially every morning for many years, and that during all that period of time, upon the announcement by the doorman of “ the rapid transit for Brooklyn,” the people were accustomed to rush out of the station, over the station platform to the north tracks, then across them to and upon the platform, in readiness to board the train as soon as it came to a stop; and that this custom had been so long continued that such an announcement by the doorman on the morning in question, constituted an invitation to every passenger there, including the plaintiff’s testator, to pass out of the station, across the station platform, then over the north tracks and to the platform of the south track, with the assurance that the way was not only free from *226 obstructions, but would remain so for such a reasonable time' as would enable them to pass to the train in safety, and, therefore, it was for the jury to say whether in accepting that invitation and proceeding as plaintiff’s testator did, without looking and listening, and in the manner described by the witnesses, he was nevertheless exercising that reasonable care and caution which the situation demanded. Cases in which the principle is invoked which lies at the foundation of this decision, are Terry v. Jewett (78 N. Y. 338); Brassell v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. (84 N. Y. 241); Palmer v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. (112 N. Y. 234); Oldenburg v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. (124 N. Y. 414).

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

All concur, except Gray, J., not voting.

Order affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered for the plaintiff on the stipulation, with costs.

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

Parker, Ch. J.

The plaintiff’s testator having neither looked nor listened as the train approached which caused his death, the query is whether the court must say that his negligence contributed to the result, or the jury may say that it did not.

The jury were at liberty to find from the evidence before it that the defendant had started the train on the south track substantially every morning for many years, and that during all that period of time, upon the announcement by the doorman of “ the rapid transit for Brooklyn,” the people were accustomed to rush out of the station, over the station platform to the north tracks, then across them to and upon the platform, in readiness to board the train as soon as it came to a stop; and that this custom had been so long continued that such an announcement by the doorman on the morning in question, constituted an invitation to every passenger there, including the plaintiff’s testator, to pass out of the station, across the station platform, then over the north tracks and to the platform of the south track, with the assurance that the way was not only free from *226 obstructions, but would remain so for such a reasonable time' as would enable them to pass to the train in safety, and, therefore, it was for the jury to say whether in accepting that invitation and proceeding as plaintiff’s testator did, without looking and listening, and in the manner described by the witnesses, he was nevertheless exercising that reasonable care and caution which the situation demanded. Cases in which the principle is invoked which lies at the foundation of this decision, are Terry v. Jewett (78 N. Y. 338); Brassell v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. (84 N. Y. 241); Palmer v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. (112 N. Y. 234); Oldenburg v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. (124 N. Y. 414).

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

All concur, except Gray, J., not voting.

Order affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered for the plaintiff on the stipulation, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 N.E. 899, 161 N.Y. 222, 15 E.H. Smith 222, 1900 N.Y. LEXIS 1434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beecher-v-long-island-rr-co-ny-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack