Glassberg v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Glassberg v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

92 N.Y.S. 731

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 21, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 N.Y.S. 731 (Glassberg v. Interurban Street Railway 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

Glassberg v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 92 N.Y.S. 731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

O’GORMAN, J.

Plaintiff’s daughter boarded an open northbound car operated by the defendant at Astor Place, and rode uptown as far as Ninety-First street on Madison avenue. She was-seated on the east end of the fourth seat from the rear. When the, car reached Ninety-First street she discovered that the car was on fire, particularly on the left side, about two rows of seats in front of her. The car was running fast, and proceeded for some distance-to Ninety-Second street, where it came to a sudden stop with a. violent jerk, which threw the young woman from her seat in the-car to the street. The flames were not extinguished until the car-stopped. To nonsuit the plaintiff upon this evidence was error. If this car was stopped by the motorman with a jerk so violent as to hurl a passenger from her. seat to the pavement, the occurrence-was plainly the result of his improper application of the motive power. Hassen v. Nassau R. R., 34 App. Div. 71, 53 N. Y. Supp. 1069; Dochtermann v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 32 App. Div. 13, 52 N. Y. Supp. 1051. If the car came to a stop because of the fire which enveloped the car, the burden was upon .the defendant of explaining the accident so as to relieve itself from liability. Clarke v. Railroad, 9 App. Div. 51, 41 N. Y. Supp. 78; Seybolt v. Road, 95 N. Y. 562, 47 Am. Rep. 75.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

O’GORMAN, J.

Plaintiff’s daughter boarded an open northbound car operated by the defendant at Astor Place, and rode uptown as far as Ninety-First street on Madison avenue. She was-seated on the east end of the fourth seat from the rear. When the, car reached Ninety-First street she discovered that the car was on fire, particularly on the left side, about two rows of seats in front of her. The car was running fast, and proceeded for some distance-to Ninety-Second street, where it came to a sudden stop with a. violent jerk, which threw the young woman from her seat in the-car to the street. The flames were not extinguished until the car-stopped. To nonsuit the plaintiff upon this evidence was error. If this car was stopped by the motorman with a jerk so violent as to hurl a passenger from her. seat to the pavement, the occurrence-was plainly the result of his improper application of the motive power. Hassen v. Nassau R. R., 34 App. Div. 71, 53 N. Y. Supp. 1069; Dochtermann v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 32 App. Div. 13, 52 N. Y. Supp. 1051. If the car came to a stop because of the fire which enveloped the car, the burden was upon .the defendant of explaining the accident so as to relieve itself from liability. Clarke v. Railroad, 9 App. Div. 51, 41 N. Y. Supp. 78; Seybolt v. Road, 95 N. Y. 562, 47 Am. Rep. 75.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 N.Y.S. 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glassberg-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack