Case Name: PIETRAROIA v. NEW JERSEY & H. R. RY. & FERRY CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-04-16
Citations: 116 N.Y.S. 249
Docket Number: 
Parties: PIETRAROIA v. NEW JERSEY & H. R. RY. & FERRY CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 116
Pages: 249–253

Head Matter:
PIETRAROIA v. NEW JERSEY & H. R. RY. & FERRY CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
April 16, 1909.)
1. Street Railroads (§ 114 )—Injuries to Person on Track—Contributory Negligence—Sufficiency of Evidence.
In an action against a street railroad for death of plaintiff’s intestate through being struck by a car while attempting to cross defendant’s tracks, evidence held to show contributory negligence on the part of deceased.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Street Railroads, Dec. Dig. § 114.*]
2. Statutes (§ 1 )—Extraterritorial Force.
The statutory law of a state has no extraterritorial force.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Statutes, Dec. Dig. § 1.*]
3. Death (§ 35*)—Action—Jurisdiction .
Courts will not take jurisdiction of an action for death, where all the parties interested were nonresidents, the accident occurred in another state, and, but for the fact that decedent left a small property in the state, the courts would have had no jurisdiction.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Death, Cent. Dig. § 50; Dec. Dig. § 35.*]
Patterson, P. J., and Houghton, J., dissenting in part.
Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by Pietro Pietraroia, as administrator, etc., against the New Jersey & Hudson River Railway & Ferry Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and complaint dismissed.
Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, CLARKE, HOUGHTON, and SCOTT, JJ.
Clarence E. Thornall, for appellant.
Herbert S. Smyth, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to ante, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HOUGHTON, J.
The action is to recover damages for the negligent killing of plaintiff's intestate, while she was attempting to cross one of defendant's tracks. The defendant is a New Jersey corporation, operates a ferry across the Hudson river from New York City to Ft. Lee, and a double-track street railway running from that- place to various points in northern New Jersey. In the evening of October 19, 1906, the deceased, in company with her husband and another man, were intending to board a north-bound car on Broad avenue, in what is known as "Palisades Park." As they came to the far side of the avenue, a car was observed going in the desired direction, and the husband arid friend went ahead of the deceased to detain the car for her. Whether from unwillingness to delay or lack of understanding on the part of the conductor, he refused to hold the car and started it with the two men aboard. From the testimony on the part of plaintiff it is apparent that the deceased proceeded diagonally northward in the vicinity of the south-bound track, in the hope of overtaking the car which her husband had boarded. A south-bound car coming at a rapid rate struck and killed her just as she was stepping over the outer rail of the south-bound track. It is also clear from the plaintiff's own proof that the point of the accident was about 75 feet north of the intersecting street where the husband had gotten aboard. Although there is some testimony that, when the witnesses first observed the deceased, she was 4 or 5 feet west of the south-bound track and in the vicinity of the northerly crosswalk of Central Boulevard, it is manifest that the accident did not happen at that point, as the plaintiff now insists, but at a point considerably further north. The south-bound car carried a lighted reflector headlight, which was very brilliant.
If it be conceded that the defendant was negligent in the speed at which the south-bound car was run, and that the motorman was careless in observing the movements of the decedent, still we are of the opinion that the judgment cannot stand because of the clear contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. She was walking toward the coming brilliantly lighted car. Her husband testifies that he heard a whistle; but, whether the whistle sounded or not, she was bound to look, and to observe that a car was approaching upon the track which she was about to cross. The presumption is that she did look, for it was something she could not help but see. Plaintiff's counsel urges that the light was so bright that it blinded her, and that it was impossible because of its brightness for her to estimate its distance from her. These suggestions present no excuse. Had she only been injured, and not killed, and had she testified that she looked, ás the law compelled her to do, and did not see the light and the car, her testimony would have been deemed incredible as matter of law, and she must necessarily have been held guilty of contributory negligence in failing to exercise ordinary caution. Dolfini v. Erie Railroad Co., 178 N. Y. 1, 70 N. E. 68.
The plaintiff, a resident of the state of New York, was appointed administrator of the deceased on the ground that she, although a resident of the state of New Jersey, left property within the county of New York, consisting of a deposit in a savings bank to the credit of herself and her husband, "or either.'' On her death the husband drew out about one half the amount, and on the trial testified that the other half belonged to his deceased wife. We are not prepared to say, upon his testimony and the form of the deposit, that none of the moneys belonged to the deceased, and that, therefore, the Sunogate's Court had no jurisdiction to appoint the plaintiff administrator of her estate.
The accident occurred in the state of New Jersey, and the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of that state. The decedent and her husband and children were residents there. All the witnesses to the accident on both sides had to be imported to this state. In view of the pressure of business upon the courts of New York City, although the plaintiff may have had a technical right to bring the action here, it would seem that the trial should have been had in the other state.
In any event, the verdict was against the weight of evidence as to lack of contributing negligence on the part of the deceased, and the judgment and order must be reversed, and a hew trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
PATTERSON, P. J., concurs.