Cross v. Murray

260 A.D. 1030, 24 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5942
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 16, 1940
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 260 A.D. 1030 (Cross v. Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cross v. Murray, 260 A.D. 1030, 24 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5942 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the complaint alleges that the defendant was negligent in permitting a subway platform to become overcrowded, by reason of which plaintiff was forced off the platform to the train rails and was run over by an express train. Judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiff reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Plaintiff’s proof was insufficient to raise a question as to whether or not the platform was excessively crowded. A subway company is not negligent merely because it permits crowds to gather on its platform. Before proof of negligence in this regard may be said to exist, it must be shown that the crowd was so large and unmanaged that a user of the platform was restricted in his free movements or was unable to find a safe standing place, and that as a result of either of those conditions an injury was sustained. Plaintiff’s evidence fell far short of such proof, and the issue of overcrowding should not have been submitted to the jury. (Williams v. New York Rapid Transit Corp., 272 N. Y. 366; Commerford v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.,' 199 App. Div. 852; McKinney v. N. Y. Consolidated R. R. Co., 230 N. Y. 194; Hanshew v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 247 App. Div. 784; Verdini v. Interborough [1031]*1031Rapid Transit Co., 192 id. 379.) On the evidence adduced the case should have been submitted to the jury on the sole issue of whether or not the motorman, who admittedly saw the plaintiff on the tracks, acted with reasonable prudence under the circumstances. In any event, on this record, it is against the weight of the evidence to find that defendant was negligent either in permitting dangerous overcrowding of the platform or that the motorman did not act with reasonable prudence to stop the train. Lazansky, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bailey v. New York City Tr. Auth.
2020 NY Slip Op 2187 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Garcia v. New York City Transit Authority
114 A.D.3d 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Eleanor M. Stagl v. Delta Airlines, Inc.
52 F.3d 463 (Second Circuit, 1995)
Lynch v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
439 F. Supp. 110 (S.D. New York, 1977)
Stark v. Penn Central Co.
32 A.D.2d 910 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1969)
Jokelson v. Allied Stores Corp.
31 A.D.2d 200 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1968)
Angrisani v. New York Central Railroad
22 A.D.2d 666 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)
McIvor v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
10 A.D.2d 961 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Ryan v. City of New York
7 A.D.2d 298 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Stern v. City of New York
283 A.D. 1101 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 A.D. 1030, 24 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cross-v-murray-nyappdiv-1940.