Doran v. East River Ferry Co.

3 Lans. 105
New York Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1870·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

By the Court —

Barnard, J.

The question as to whether plaintiff was guilty of, or contributed to, the accident by her negligence, was fairly submitted to the jury, and by them found in the negative. There was testimony on both sides on that subject, and the weight was given by the jury to plaintiff’s side, and we cannot disturb their finding. The only [108] other question was, whether plaintiff, by riding upon the boat after having paid only one fare, could not recover damages for gross negligence. She remained on the boat; did not go ashore, so as to pass through the gate at the landing. The employes of the company saw her there, and it was their business to demand her fare, if they intended to charge her. Their not doing 'so would not render her liable to be held guilty of negligence, or of being carried gratuitously, so as not to render the company liable for damages arising through negligence on their part. (Perkins v. The N. Y. Cen’l R. R. Co., 24 N. Y., 196, and cases there cited.)

The judgment should be affirmed.

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

Doran v. East River Ferry Co., 3 Lans. 105 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1870).

3 Lans. 105 (Doran v. East River Ferry Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fitzmaurice v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
78 N.E. 418 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)