Eackles v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eackles v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

207 A.D.2d 691, 616 N.Y.S.2d 374

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 8, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 691 (Eackles v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.) 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

Eackles v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 207 A.D.2d 691, 616 N.Y.S.2d 374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about September 14, 1993, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed, without costs.

Even assuming that defendants were negligent by failing to prevent passenger entry to a train platform not actually in use, we find that the adult plaintiffs’ actions in attempting to cross from that platform to another by means of climbing over a stationary train rather than using the stairways provided for that purpose was so unforeseeable as to relieve defendants of any liability (see, e.g., Fellis v Old Oaks Country Club, 163 AD2d 509, lv denied 77 NY2d 802). Since the reckless and unforeseeable behavior of these adult plaintiffs was the sole cause of the injuries suffered when they came into contact with electrical wires running over the top of the train, defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about September 14, 1993, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed, without costs.

Even assuming that defendants were negligent by failing to prevent passenger entry to a train platform not actually in use, we find that the adult plaintiffs’ actions in attempting to cross from that platform to another by means of climbing over a stationary train rather than using the stairways provided for that purpose was so unforeseeable as to relieve defendants of any liability (see, e.g., Fellis v Old Oaks Country Club, 163 AD2d 509, lv denied 77 NY2d 802). Since the reckless and unforeseeable behavior of these adult plaintiffs was the sole cause of the injuries suffered when they came into contact with electrical wires running over the top of the train, defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 691, 616 N.Y.S.2d 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eackles-v-national-railroad-passenger-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack