Kramer v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad

114 A.D. 804, 100 N.Y.S. 276, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2196
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 24, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 114 A.D. 804 (Kramer v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad) 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
Kramer v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad, 114 A.D. 804, 100 N.Y.S. 276, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Opinions

Jenks, J.:

The plaintiff complains that when standing on the running board of an open electric car moved by the defendant, he was swept off [805]*805by a plank which projected 4 inches over the running board from a fence around a work in the street. He did not prove that the car was stopped by the conductor for him to get on it or that after he had boarded the car, when there was only room for him on the running board and he stood on the running board, he was seen by the •conductor and suffered to remain there, or that his fare was demanded or accepted from him while in that position. It is obvious that if he had not been on the running board he would have suffered no injury. Before he could hold the defendant as a common carrier he was bound to show that he was invited to ride as a passenger on the running board of the car. Non constat but that the defendant would have refused to transport him while in that place and so to extend to- him the assurance that it was a suitable and safe place ” for him as a passenger. I think, therefore, that the plaintiff failed to make out a case. (Clark, v. Eighth Avenue R. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 135.) If the plaintiff had established his status as a passenger on the running board, I am not prepared to say that he did not upon his part make out a case for’the jury.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Hirschberg, P. J., and Woodward, J., concurred; Gaynor, J., read for reversal, with whom Hooker, J., concurred.

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

Related

Alleyne v. Racette
E.D. New York, 2020
Kramer v. Brooklyn Heights R.
100 N.Y.S. 1124 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 A.D. 804, 100 N.Y.S. 276, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kramer-v-brooklyn-heights-railroad-nyappdiv-1906.