Case ID: misc_56/html/0496-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arthur Lewyt, Appellant, v. The Dry Dock, East Broadway and Battery Railroad Company, Respondent.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    November, 1907.)
    Carriers — Carriage of passengers — Ejection of passengers — Manner of ejection.
    Where a person boards a street car and offers the conductor in payment of his fare a transfer which he has received from another line, but the conductor says it is no good and he will have to pay another fare or get off and he says he will get off when, the car stops, he is entitled to the same consideration as if he had paid his fare and to a reasonable opportunity to alight; and, where the conductor kicks the bundle he is carrying into the street and gives him a punch in the eye and he falls from the car and his goods are ruined, the railroad company is liable for the damages he sustains. . • .
    Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, second district, borough of the -Bronx.
    Jacob Gordon, for appellant.
    William E. Weaver, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff testified that he boarded a Second avenue car at Eighty-sixth street and asked the conductor for a transfer to Grand street, which was given him and which was admitted in evidence; that he rode to Grand street and boarded a Grand street horse car, operated by the defendant, and when his fare was demanded offered the transfer to the conductor, who said: “ This transfer is no good, that I would have to pay another fare or get off, and I told him -that I would get off when the car stopped and with his foot then he kicked the btindle off into the street -and he gave me a punch in the eye and I fell down from the car and the goods were ruined.” The defendant made no attempt to controvert this proof. Judgment was rendered for the- defendant and the plaintiff appeals. It is urged by the respondent that the plaintiff could not- recover as he was not a passenger for hire. This position cannot be upheld- .The plaintiff had boarded the car as a passenger, he had tendered in payment of his fare a transfer, and, upon being told that the transfer was of no value, he expressed a willingness to leave the car as soon as it could be stopped. He was entitled to as much consideration from the servants and employees of the defendant as though he had actually handed the conductor the fare demanded. The defendant owed him the duty of either carrying him safely to his destination, or affording him a reasonable opportunity to alight. Even if he had refused to pay his fare and had- persisted in riding, his ejectment for non-payment could only be accomplished by resorting to no more fórce than was actually necessary. Under the facts disclosed the plaintiff proved a cause of action and the judgment rendered has absolutely no foundation.

Present: Gildebsleeve, Leventbitt and Eblangee, JJ.

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