Case ID: nys_96/html/1031-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(49 Misc. Rep. 621)
    DRIGGS v. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    December 21, 1905.)
    Carriers—Injuries to Passenger’s Clothing—Sufficiency of Evidence.
    In an action against a street railroad for injuries to a passenger’s dress, caused by its coming in contact with a hinge of the gate of the car, which was smeared with grease, evidence, as to the condition of the gate, that it was unusual and not to be guarded against by passengers, that it was the cause of the injury, and that the gate was immediately controlled by defendant’s servant, so as to raise an inference of notice to defendant of its condition, was sufficient to establish defendant’s liability.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Carriers, § 1221.]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Twelfth District. Action by Marie Etienne Driggs against the Interborough Rapid Transit Company. 'Erom a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BISCHOFF and MacLEAN, JJ.
    George R. Coughlin, for appellant.
    Edward M. Bliven, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The cause of action for negligence was supported by evidence that the hinge of the gate upon the car was smeared with grease, that the condition was an unusual one, hence not to be guarded against by passengers, and that the presence of this grease was the cause of the injury to the plaintiff’s dress. In view of the fact that the gate was immediately controlled by the defendant’s servant, stationed by it, the inference of notice of the condition was readily permissible, and the omission of reasonable care in thus maintaining the car, for the purpose for which passengers were invited to use it, was sufficiently established. The award of damages for the injury to the garment was well within the proof.

' Judgment affirmed, with costs.