Case Name: SCHLESSINGER v. MANHATTAN RY. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-03-12
Citations: 98 N.Y.S. 840
Docket Number: 
Parties: SCHLESSINGER v. MANHATTAN RY. CO.
Judges: Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GIEGERICH and GREEN-BAUM, JJ.
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 98
Pages: 840–842

Head Matter:
(49 Misc. Rep. 504)
SCHLESSINGER v. MANHATTAN RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 12, 1906.)
1. Carriers — Passengers—Unsafe Approaches.
' The duty of a railway company towards its passengers extends to the exercise of reasonable care in affording them safe approaches to the stations and platforms, and this duty applies not only to such approaches as may have been constructed and owned by the company, but to those constructed and owned by the city, if constantly and notoriously used by passengers as a means of approach.
[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Carriers, § 1142, 1145.]
2. Same.
Though approaches to the stations of a railway company are owned by the city, and the company has no right to make repairs without permission, and is not called on to seek such permission, it should at least provide against injury to its passengers by erecting barricades, or giving such warning as will guard against accidents.
Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
Action by Alfred Schlessinger against the Manhattan Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GIEGERICH and GREEN-BAUM, JJ.
Charles A. Gardiner (G. Tarleton Goldthwaite, of counsel), for appellant.
Wrn. Victor Goldberg, for respondent.

Opinion:
SCOTT, P. J.
The plaintiff tripped upon the step of a stairway leading from one of defendant's platforms to the street. There is no doubt of the injury, or of the defective conditions from which the injury resulted. The main defense relied upon .is that the stairway upon which the accident happened had been constructed by, and was owned and maintained by, the city of New York. The evidence on this subject showed that in 1896 or 1897, after defendant's platform had been constructed for some years, the city of New York erected an elevated viaduct over 155th street at right angles to the avenue upon which defendant's road ran. This work necessitated certain changes in defendant's platform and the approaches thereto, including the stairway in question, and it is said that these changes were made by the city, or, if made by defendant, were so made at the expense of the city, under a written contract between the defendant and the city, which was referred to, but. not produced. There were other means of getting from the platform to the street. The defendant maintains a sign on its property pointing in the direction of the stairway, and indicating that it affords a means-of access to the street. Assuming that the stairway was constructed by the city, and remained its property, and should have been, and perhaps to some extent is, cared for by the city, I am of the opinion that this does not excuse the defendant from liability. Tbe duty of a .railway company towards its passengers extends to the exercise of rea-; sonable care in affording them safe approaches to the stations -and' platforms, and this duty, in my opinion, applies not only to such approaches as may have been constructed and owned by the company, but to those constructed and owned by other persons, if constantly and notoriously used by passengers as a means of,approach. Such use indicates the express or implied invitation by the carrier, and more especially when the carrier indicates the approach by signs as one to be used. The adoption and indication of such an approach as one to be used casts upon the carrier the duty of exercising a reasonable amount of care and inspection to see that the approach is kept in a safe condition; and, even if it has no right to make repairs without permission, and is not called upon to seek such permission, it can at least provide'against injury to its passengers by erecting such barricades or giving such warning as will guard against accidents. D., L. & W. R. R. Co. v. Trautwein, 52 N. J. Law 169, 19 Atl. 178, 7 L. R. A. 435, 19 Am. St. Rep. 442; G., C. & Santa Fe R. R. Co. v. Glenk, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 599, 30 S. W. 278; E. Tenn. R. R. v. Watson, 94 Ala. 634, 10 South. 228, That the stairway was in a defective condition, and had been for some, time, was sufficiently proven, and no contradiction was attempted. The damages, though ample, were not excessive.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
GffiGERICH, J., concurs.