Buchter v. New York City Ry. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Buchter v. New York City Ry. Co.

90 N.Y.S. 335

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 10, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 90 N.Y.S. 335 (Buchter v. New York City Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buchter v. New York City Ry. Co., 90 N.Y.S. 335 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff was injured through leaving a place of safety upon the car and taking a position of danger upon the step. [336]*336To charge the defendant with liability for an accident due to the plaintiff having been pushed from the step by reason of the crowded condition of the car, notice to the servants in charge of the car that plaintiff was about to alight was essential, since, without notice, there was no duty to assume his presence in this place of danger and to protect him from the crowd. The proof of notice was wholly insufficient, for the plaintiff himself did not know whether, when he nodded in the conductor’s direction, he actually had attracted the latter’s attention, and there was, therefore, a failure of proof which called for a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff was injured through leaving a place of safety upon the car and taking a position of danger upon the step. [336]*336To charge the defendant with liability for an accident due to the plaintiff having been pushed from the step by reason of the crowded condition of the car, notice to the servants in charge of the car that plaintiff was about to alight was essential, since, without notice, there was no duty to assume his presence in this place of danger and to protect him from the crowd. The proof of notice was wholly insufficient, for the plaintiff himself did not know whether, when he nodded in the conductor’s direction, he actually had attracted the latter’s attention, and there was, therefore, a failure of proof which called for a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 N.Y.S. 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchter-v-new-york-city-ry-co-nyappterm-1904.