Case ID: ny_227/html/0666-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peter J. Pierson, Respondent, v. Interborough Rapid Transit Company, Appellant.
    
      Pierson v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 184 App. Div. 678, affirmed.
    (Argued December 12, 1919;
    decided January 6, 1920.)
    Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 13, 1918, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant. Plaintiff was employed as a guard on the defendant’s railroad. On the day of the accident, his train having arrived at its terminal station, he was relieved from duty, another guard took his. place and he walked out of the train, of which his car had been a part, and up to the front car, boarded it, went to the front of it, sat down and began reading his newspaper, and so remained until the accident occurred. He was at the time on his way to keep an appointment he had that day with his dentist. Defendant contended that the plaintiff had no cause of action at common law, his sole remedy being under the Workmen’s Compensation Law; and that the plaintiff was not a passenger, and that the maxim res ipso loquitur does not apply.
    The courts below held that defendant owed plaintiff its duty to a passenger.
    
      Frederick J. Moses and James L. Quackenbush for appellant.
    
      John C. Robinson and Frank L. Tyson for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Andrews and Elkus, JJ.