Cooney v. Hudson & Manhattan Railroad

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Cooney v. Hudson & Manhattan Railroad

138 A. 512, 5 N.J. Misc. 842, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 105

DecidedAugust 26, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A. 512 (Cooney v. Hudson & Manhattan Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cooney v. Hudson & Manhattan Railroad, 138 A. 512, 5 N.J. Misc. 842, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 105 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellee brought suit to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from an alleged defective condition of the station platform of appellant at the Journal Square station in Jersey City. She had a verdict for $100, which was set aside as inadequate, and upon a retrial as to damages only had a verdict for $250. From the judgment entered thereon this appeal is taken and the sole ground for reversal is- directed at the following portion of the court’s charge: “Now, [843]*843in this case the plaintiff is bringing her action against the defendant because there was a defective condition in the platform or a condition of disrepair or unsafe condition for the passengers who were using that platform to pass over. The sole question, therefore, for you to determine is whether or not such a condition which was unsafe, or such a state of disrepair existed there, which the company had notice of which would endanger anyone who was using that platform, endangering his life or limb or in anywise interfering with what he thought might be a safe condition. Now, the court instructs you that if you find there was such a condition and that this condition was proximately caused by the defendant’s failure to keep its platform in a good state of repair and in safe condition for its passengers, then your verdict should be in favor of the plaintiff.”

Obviously, such instruction placed upon the appellant a greater degree of care than that imposed by law, namely, reasonable care to keep and maintain its platform in a condition reasonably safe for use by persons exercising, upon their own behalf, reasonable care in the use thereof.

The judgment below must therefore be reversed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellee brought suit to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from an alleged defective condition of the station platform of appellant at the Journal Square station in Jersey City. She had a verdict for $100, which was set aside as inadequate, and upon a retrial as to damages only had a verdict for $250. From the judgment entered thereon this appeal is taken and the sole ground for reversal is- directed at the following portion of the court’s charge: “Now, [843]*843in this case the plaintiff is bringing her action against the defendant because there was a defective condition in the platform or a condition of disrepair or unsafe condition for the passengers who were using that platform to pass over. The sole question, therefore, for you to determine is whether or not such a condition which was unsafe, or such a state of disrepair existed there, which the company had notice of which would endanger anyone who was using that platform, endangering his life or limb or in anywise interfering with what he thought might be a safe condition. Now, the court instructs you that if you find there was such a condition and that this condition was proximately caused by the defendant’s failure to keep its platform in a good state of repair and in safe condition for its passengers, then your verdict should be in favor of the plaintiff.”

Obviously, such instruction placed upon the appellant a greater degree of care than that imposed by law, namely, reasonable care to keep and maintain its platform in a condition reasonably safe for use by persons exercising, upon their own behalf, reasonable care in the use thereof.

The judgment below must therefore be reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A. 512, 5 N.J. Misc. 842, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooney-v-hudson-manhattan-railroad-nj-1927.