Gyle v. Joline

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Gyle v. Joline

120 N.Y.S. 761

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 21, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 120 N.Y.S. 761 (Gyle v. Joline) 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

Gyle v. Joline, 120 N.Y.S. 761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

DAYTON, J.

Plaintiff made an uncontradicted prima facie case.. He had a transfer, and boarded the lighted car carrying other passengers. The conductor was informed of plaintiff’s transfer. In addition, plaintiff agreed to pay his fare. The fact that the car was carrying other passengers was a sufficient invitation. The fact that this-car was drawing a “dead car” is immaterial—a circumstance of not infrequent occurrence. The brutal actions of the conductor may not be regarded as an inference that plaintiff was not “invited” to become [762]*762a passenger. To so regard them would establish a precedent quite inimical to the rights of patrons of defendant company. To remit plaintiff to an action for assault on the undisputed facts would be unjust.

The verdict is so clearly against the weight of evidence that it should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide 'he event.

GIEGERICH, J., concurs in result. LEHMAN, J., dissents.

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

DAYTON, J.

Plaintiff made an uncontradicted prima facie case.. He had a transfer, and boarded the lighted car carrying other passengers. The conductor was informed of plaintiff’s transfer. In addition, plaintiff agreed to pay his fare. The fact that the car was carrying other passengers was a sufficient invitation. The fact that this-car was drawing a “dead car” is immaterial—a circumstance of not infrequent occurrence. The brutal actions of the conductor may not be regarded as an inference that plaintiff was not “invited” to become [762]*762a passenger. To so regard them would establish a precedent quite inimical to the rights of patrons of defendant company. To remit plaintiff to an action for assault on the undisputed facts would be unjust.

The verdict is so clearly against the weight of evidence that it should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide 'he event.

GIEGERICH, J., concurs in result. LEHMAN, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 N.Y.S. 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gyle-v-joline-nyappterm-1910.