Graham v. Manhattan Railway Co.

New York Court of Common Pleas

Graham v. Manhattan Railway Co.

28 N.Y.S. 739, 8 Misc. 305, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 279

New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided May 17, 1894·Published

Opinion

BOOKSTAVER, J.

We think, on the other hand, it was the plain and manifest duty of the appellant, when he found how dangerous the condition of the platform was, and had reached a place of safety on the Fifty-Third street platform, to wait for the next train, and not put himself where the gates of the car platform could not be shut, or have voluntarily gone upon a platform which he knew was dangerous, and by so doing took the risk which resulted in the injuries received by him. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

BOOKSTAVER, J.

We think, on the other hand, it was the plain and manifest duty of the appellant, when he found how dangerous the condition of the platform was, and had reached a place of safety on the Fifty-Third street platform, to wait for the next train, and not put himself where the gates of the car platform could not be shut, or have voluntarily gone upon a platform which he knew was dangerous, and by so doing took the risk which resulted in the injuries received by him. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Graham v. Manhattan Railway Co., 28 N.Y.S. 739, 8 Misc. 305, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 279 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

28 N.Y.S. 739 (Graham v. Manhattan Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.