New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-08-29
FERRYBO1T-G4TES.

Upon the heels of a discussion whether the
Union Ferry Company is compelable by law
to place gates at the ends of the ferry boats,
comes n casualty illustrating the Importance of
some more substantial guard than the loose
chains. A Flushing farmer drove pair of
horses and wagon upon a Roosevelt Street boat,
late at night. He dismounted The whistle
blown when the boat started frightened the
horses. The driver was promptly Mt hand, did
his best to stop them, and was even somewhat
hurt in doing so but they ran forward, trampled
down or leaped over the chain, dragged the
wagon overheard, and were drowned. Loss,
5000. Who bears it: the owner or the ferry
company
The responsibility of ferry companies for casu-
alties of this sort would give Them we should sup
pose, u motive for maintaining sufficient guards
One cannot but wonder at the parsimony which
seeks to cvade Il demand for erection of gates
Upon that point the story is briefly told, that
city ordinance, passed many years ago, directed
that ferry leases made after its passage should
contain an engagement on the part of the COM
pany to maintain gates--like those to be seen
in daily use on Hoboken boats. Possibly this
ordinance has been repealed; either for that
reason, or by collision oversight, il was dis
regarded when the present leases were drawn
and the company's lawyer now says that gates
cannot be required that the compapy's obi
cations are limited to complying with the
terms of the lease as written This may be a
sound legal position the common sense view
which the general public will he apt to take
is that the company was bound to know be-
| forehand any published conditions which the
fiscal officers of the city required by law to
include in the lease, and may justly be charged
with them, Notwithstanding n fraudulent or
laundering omission to write them out in form
| in the lease itself.
| However this may be-whether the CITY has
| the right to claim gates or not--there is no
| doubt that persons who use the ferries are en-
| titled to have the boats constructed and
| equipped in the best manner practicable to in
sure safety of passengers and property. As
| whatever property is carried on these boats
| goes almost always in charge of some passen-
| ger there Is little opportunity to enforce TIE
! strict law OF common carriers, such as governs
loss OF baggage ard freights on railways
ana steamboats,. In so far as ferry passenger
retains the personal charge of his parcel or
valise, or his horse and carriage, the company
is not responsible for losses not attributable TO
neglect on the part of the management. A
team during ferry trip is not at the sole risk
OF either the company or the owner The
company does not undertake absolutely that it
| shall cross safely; but it does undertake
against all risk from any neglect or want of
skill of the men in charge OF the boat, or from
any defects or insuiliciencies in the boat against
! which the company could, by the exercise OF
the highest care and skill, have made provis-
| ion.
The principles are wei settled, but diff.
cult OF application. AS such lawsuits arc
usually tried, plaintiff complains that the
whistle was blown extravaganty, two or three
times, III way to terrify any horse and that tho
| chain was old and weak-broken. perhaps, and