Case Name: AXELROD v. NEW YORK CITY RY
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-11-24
Citations: 95 N.Y.S. 1072
Docket Number: 
Parties: AXELROD v. NEW YORK CITY RY.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 95
Pages: 1072–1076

Head Matter:
(109 App. Div. 87.)
AXELROD v. NEW YORK CITY RY.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
November 24, 1905.)
1. Negligence—Burden oe Proof—Contributory Negligence.
In an action for injuries, plaintiff has the burden of proving freedom from contributory negligence.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. Negligence, § 229.]
2. Same—Evidence—Sufficiency.
Less evidence is required of a personal representative as to freedom from contributory negligence of a decedent than is required in the case of a living person.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 15, Cent Dig. Death, § 76.]
3. Street Railboads—Injuries—Persons on Track—Contributory Negligence.
In an action for death, evidence that deceased stepped off a street car, and went around behind the same, and was struck by a car approaching on the next track from the opposite direction, did not warrant a verdict for plaintiff, because of the absence of evidence of due care on the part of deceased.
Patterson, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by Gazelle Axelrod, administratrix, against the New York City Railway. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before O’BRIEN; P. J., and McLAUGHEIN, PATTERSON, INGRAHAM, and EAUGHLIN, JJ.
R. R. Rogers, for appellant.'
A. B. Greenberg, for respondent.

Opinion:
McLAUGHEIN, J.
There is nothing in the record before us which shows, even inferentially, that the intestate exercised any care whatever before attempting to cross defendant's tracks. On this point there is no dispute as to the facts. On Avenue A the defendant operates two lines of cars; the tracks upon which the cars going in a northerly direction are run being on the easterly, and those going in a southerly direction on the westerly, side of the avenue, and the distance between them is a little over five feet. On the evening of March 28, 1904, the intestate was a passenger on a northbound car. He alighted at 90th street, the car stopping for that purpose at the southerly cross-walk. After leaving the car, he immediately passed around the rear end of it, and- attempted to cross the tracks upon which the southerly cars were run, and in doing so was struck and killed by a car going in that direction. Whether he had succeeded in getting onto the track, or was just in the act of doing so, did not appear. The only evidence bearing upon his act after leaving the northbound car was the testimony of the plaintiff's witness Walters, who stated:
"I first seen the man when he started, to walk around the northbound car, as I take for granted he got off. There was a northbound car there at the time. The northbound car, when I first saw it, was stopped at the southwest corner of -90th street. I did not see the man do anything but walk from the time I saw him. He walked westerly, in a westerly direction, straight. There was nothing unusual about his gait—nothing peculiar about it—not that I noticed. He was near the southbound tracks when he was struck. I could not say he had crossed any part of the southbound tracks. The man was walking an ordinary walk. I could not say whether it was a fast or slow walk; a man's ordinary walk. I did not see him look in any direction before he attempted to cross. He did not have anything in his hands."
There was some conflict between the plaintiff's witness and those called by. the defendant as to just What happened immediately prior to the time when the deceased was struck by the car; but adopting the testimony of .plaintiff's witness (and his is the most favorable to her),.I do not see how this recovery can be sustained. The testimony does not show that the intestate exercised any care whatever. The car was lighted.' There was nothing to obstruct his vision. The danger was apparent, and had he used his eyes, as he was bound by law to do, it must have been evident to him. It may be conceded that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on defendant's negligence, but that does not aid the plaintiff, because she was obligated to prove, before she was entitled to recover, that the intestate was himself free from negligence, and in this respect she utterly failed. Defendant's motions to dismiss the complaint at the close of her case and at the close of the trial should have been granted, and the exceptions taken to the rulings denying such motions must be sustained. It is true that less evidence is required of a personal representative as to contributory negligence, of a decedent than would be required in case of a surviving person. Schafer v. Mayor, 154 N. Y. 466, 48 N. E. 749. But in such cases some evidence must be given from which the jury can find the intestate did exercise the care required by law. Here, as already indicated, there was nothing which would justify such finding, unless it be the death of the intestate, and that is insufficient. An inference cannot be drawn from a presumption that he would exercise care and prudence in- regard to his 'own life and safety. Wiwirowski v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 124 N. Y. 420, 26 N. E. 1023.
Numerous authorities might.be cited both in the Court of Appeals and in this court showing upon the facts here presented that plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The following, however, are sufficient: Perez v. Sandrowitz, 180 N. Y. 397, 73 N. E. 228; Reed v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 180 N. Y. 315, 73 N. E. 41; Pinder v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 173 N. Y. 519, 66 N. E. 405; Little v. Third Ave. R. Co., 83 App. Div. 330, 82 N. Y. Supp. 55; affirmed 178 N. Y. 591, 70 N. E. 1102.
I am of the opinion that the judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
O'BRIEN, P. J., and INGRAHAM and LAUGHLIN, JJ., concur.