Case ID: ny-st-rep_37/html/0184-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pratt, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Snelling, Resp’t, v. The Brooklyn & New York Ferry Co., App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February 9, 1891.)
    
    1. NEsrauErraE—Ferries—Contributory.
    Iii an action for injuries to a passenger on a ferry boat alleged to have been caused by a negligent collision of the boat with the dock, the fact that plaintiff md not keep his seat until the boat was safely moored to the dock cannot be regarded as such evidence of negligence on his part as to take the case from the jury.
    2. Same.
    Where it appears that there was no exceptional weather or tide so as to make landing difficult or dangerous, evidence of witnesses who had traveled by the ferry for years that the boat came to the dock with a violence not previously seen by them is sufficient to take the question of defendant’s negligence to the jury.
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered on a verdict and an order denying a new trial.
    On the evening of September 8, 1888, the plaintiff, an elderly man of good health and agility, was a passenger on one of the ferry boats of defendant from New York to Brooklyn. When the boat reached the Brooklyn side it crashed, with great violence, against the ferry slip, and the plaintiff, believing from the noise that there had been a collision, arose from his seat and immediately afterwards the boat dashed with equal velocity against the other side of the ferry slip. This shock of the last collision knocked the plaintiff down, throwing him over the sill of the doorway and breaking the bones of his hip, which never afterwards united.
    
      James & Thomas H. Troy, for app’lt; Charles J. Patterson, for resp’t.
   Pratt, J.

The case presents but two questions, whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and whether there was sufficient evidence of defendant’s negligence to carry the case to the jury.

We find no controlling evidence of contributory negligence. The fact that plaintiff did not keep his seat “ till the boat was safely moored to the dock,” cannot be regarded as such evidence of negligence as to take the case from the jury. Their verdict in plaintiff’s favor cannot be interfered with.

We think there was some evidence of defendant’s negligence. ' The witnesses testified that the trip was a quiet one, that there was no exceptional weather or tide as to make landing difficult or dangerous. Several witnesses testified that the boat came to the dock with a violence not previously seen by passengers who had traveled by the ferry for years. Upon that evidence we cannot say the jury rendered an improper verdict.

The charge was as favorable to defendant as it could reasonably be made.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Dykhan, J., concur.