Case ID: nys_58/html/0394-01.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

KIERNAN v. MANHATTAN R. CO.
    (City Court of New York,
    General Term.
    May 26, 1899.)
    Railroads—Injuries to Passengers—Defective Appliances.
    A finding by a jury that a construction by a railroad company of overlapping swinging doors leading to a platform that was used daily by several thousand persons, and was long enough to enable the company to build the doors, so that they could not overlap, was negligence, so as to justify a recovery by a passenger injured thereby, will be sustained; it being the company’s duty to furnish its patrons with reasonably safe means of ingress and egress to and from the platform.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Lucy Kiernan against the Manhattan Railroad Company for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before FITZSIMOHS, C. J., and SOHUCHMAN and O’DWYER, JJ.
    Charles A. Gardiner, for appellant.
    Alfred & Charles Steckler, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

It is conceded that the doors which caused the injuries complained of were double overlapping swinging doors. As to whether or not such a construction was a safe and proper one, under all the facts and circumstances of this case, was a question of fact for the jury to determine. It was properly submitted to the jury, and determined against the defendant. We concur in-their finding. Such a construction, in our judgment, was positively dangerous in this instance. The evidence shows that the defendant’s platform was long enough, so as to enable it to so build its doors that they would not have overlapped, no matter how used by defendant’s patrons. It is certainly under a duty to its patrons to furnish them with reasonably safe means of ingress and egress to and from the platform in question. The fact that such platform was daily used by several thousands of persons should have caused them to avoid a defective and dangerous construction, such as this one was. We find no error, and judgment must be affirmed, with costs.