New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-05-17
SAFE CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS.

recent decision of the Court OF Appeals in
a suit against the Manhattan Elevated Rail
way Company is OF more than passing interest
TO the patrons OF that and other transportation
lines which fail 10 provide adequate accommo-
dation for passengers Briefly stated. this was
the case: 4 man paid for and took passage on
an elevated railroad train. The train was so
crowded that he could not get seat. nor even
into A car, but had to ride on the platform, with
the gate open. At the next station he stepped
off for A moment, to let others alight. and then
resumed his place. Then some commoton arose
on the platform, through the guards scuilng
with a drunken man, and he was forced be-
tween the ends of the cars as they rounded
curve, and there got his arm crushed. lie sued
the company for indemnity. The companys de-
fence WAS that in boarding a crowded car and
standing on the platform he was guilty OF con
tributory negligence, and had only himself to
blame. He should not have got on the car. or
should have stayed off when he stepped off at
the way station. This defence was sustained
by the Court of Common Pleas, in both Trial and
General terms, and the plaintiff was non suited
The Court of Appeals. by vote of four to three,
has reversed that decision. and declared that the
plaintiff had prima-face cause for action.
negligence may be involved the public will little
care On the ground of common sense and
equity the decision of the Court of Appeals will
be heartily approved. When "A public trans
portaton company takes a mans money and
receives him as a passenger II Is bound to give
him place in which he may travel safely. This
the Manhattan Company apparently failed to
do 1t took the mans money. and then gave
hi. lin. ~ for. Of
riding in an unsafe place. He was entitled %
the ride, and he took II. in the only place the
company provided for him. And he got hurt.
1t was not his fault. 1t should have given him
a safe place TO ride in or else 1t should not have
taken his money and have. contracted to give
him ride for It. To say that he should not
have got on the crowded train IS 10 say he should
not have taken that for which he had paid and
to which he was entitled There was no guar
antee that he would get his ride at all IL he did
not get 1t on a crowded train. The next train
might be crowded. and the next. for hours 1t
Is notorious that such * the case on that road.
Was he TO pay for ride. and then have to wait
hours to get It? The company had agreed 10
give 1t TO him M once. He took the company
at its word. as he had a perfect right 10 do.
That Is all.
1t IL 10 DO hoped that on retrial Of the case
he will get verdict 10: substantial ndcm-
nity and that all similar cases will have sim
liar result. 1t Is lntolcrabc that transportation
companies should practically force their patrons
into danger and then shrk responsibility there
for. These companies enjoy public franchises
which are enormously profitable 10 them. They
owe the public certain obligations In return
To say that peopl" must ride In discomfort and
| danger and at their own risk Is outrageous
| There are car lines. on our streets. and on the
| Brooklyn Bridge. which advertise on their ears
| that the companies will not be responsible for
| injuries to passengers riding on the platforms
| Yet they let passengers ride on the platforms
and take their money. and, indeed. compel them
| to ride there II they want to ride at all. Every
such sign Is an insult 10 the public, and is a
cynical avowal Of the compaDy's intention 10
violate the principles OF justice and common
decency. This decision Of the Court of Appeals
ought TO do much toward sweeping out Of OK
| istence both those announcements and the
wretched system they represent.