Case Name: VROMAN v. HOUSTON, W. ST. & P. FERRY R. CO.
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-02-08
Citations: 27 N.Y.S. 257
Docket Number: 
Parties: VROMAN v. HOUSTON, W. ST. & P. FERRY R. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 27
Pages: 257–258

Head Matter:
(7 Misc. Rep. 234.)
VROMAN v. HOUSTON, W. ST. & P. FERRY R. CO.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
February 8, 1894.)
Horse and Street Railroads—Injury- to Passenger.
A person who voluntarily undertakes to go from the rear to the front of an open car, on the side step thereof, and is struck by an elevated railroad pillar, has no cause of action against the street-car company. Fitzsimons, J., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by Lyman C. Vroman against the Houston, West Street & Pavonia Ferry Railroad Company. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
EHRLICH, C. J., and VAN WYCK and FITZSIMONS, JJ,
G. D. Lamb, for appellant.
Coudert Bros, and J. Kling, for respondent.
Affirmed. See 27 N. Y. Supp. 1128.

Opinion:
EHRLICH, C. J.
On the evening of June 13, 1892, the plaintiff,, with some friends, boarded an open summer car of the defendant,, having steps running along upon the outside. The plaintiff stood for a time on the rear platform, smoking. As the car neared Forty-Second street, some people got out, and the plaintiff undertook to-proceed along the side step to occupy one of the seats vacated. The change was voluntary on his part, and while he was attempting to-consummate it his head was brought in contact with an elevated railroad column, and badly injured. At the trial the complaint was-dismissed, on motion of the defendant's attorney, and we think the dismissal was right. The defendant was guilty of no act of negligence, and did nothing by means of which the plaintiff was injured. The defendant was not responsible for the presence of the elevated' railroad columns, nor for any injuries caused by them. The ease-resembles that of Murphy v. Railroad Co., 6 Misc. Rep. 298, 26 N. Y. Supp. 783, in which it was held that the defendant, under similar' circumstances, was not liable. The distinction between the rule-decided in the cases cited by the appellant and that which governs-this case is clearly laid down in the Murphy Case, and for the reasons stated the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with, costs.
VAN WYCK, J., concurs.