Case Name: ANSTETH v. BUFFALO RY. CO.
Court: Buffalo Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-07-05
Citations: 30 N.Y.S. 197
Docket Number: 
Parties: ANSTETH v. BUFFALO RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 30
Pages: 197–200

Head Matter:
(9 Misc. Rep. 419.)
ANSTETH v. BUFFALO RY. CO.
(Superior Court of Buffalo, General Term.
July 5, 1894.)
Street Cars—Injury to Boy Stealing Ride.
Plaintiff, a young boy, boarded defendant’s street car, intending to ride until the conductor should come where he stood, and then to jump off while the car was in motion. The conductor, without being noticed by plaintiff, came to where he was standing, and by a sudden motion and ejaculation frightened him, causing him to fall. Held, that defendant was liable. White, J., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by Howard J. Ansteth, by guardian, against the Buff ala Railway Company. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before HATCH and WHITE, JJ.
C. M. Bushnell, for appellant.
Adolph Bebadow, for respondent.

Opinion:
HATCH, J.
It appears without conflict of evidence that plaintiff was a trespasser upon defendant's car, and it may be assumed that he intended, when he boarded the car, to ride thereon until the conductor approached where he stood, and then alight while the car was in motion; but the jury have found that while he was thus upon the car, and while it was in rapid motion, the conductor, without the boy's knowledge, came to the front of the car, made a motion towards the boy, and uttered an ejaculation, which acts frightened and caused him to suddenly loose his hold on the rail of the dash, in consequence of which he was thrown from and under the car, receiving the injury complained of. Upon the trial, the motion made by the conductor was illustrated to the jury, but it is not described in the record. Ehough is stated, however, to. show that he reached out towards the boy, or made a motion towards him with his hand, and at the same time uttered the ejaculation. The jury were therefore authorized to find—and such is the effect of their verdict—that the acts of the conductor were intended to and had the effect of causing the boy to leave the car at the time and in the manner in which he did. It was the conductor's duty to keep his car free of trespassers, and he had the undoubted right to put .the boy off the car; but he was required to do it in a proper manner, having regard to the safety of the person. The conductor had no right, by demonstration and ejaculation, to produce fear,, and thus cause the boy to attempt to alight or loose his hold, if, by so doing, he unnecessarily exposed the boy to the hazard of injury,, any more than he had the right by physical power to expose him ta the same injury; and, if what the' conductor did caused the boy to act involuntarily, and destroyed the exercise of care and caution for the protection of his person which he could or would otherwise have exercised, and from which the injury resulted, such act was without authority, and carried with it responsibility for the damage sustained. Clark v. Railroad Co., 40 Hun, 605, affirmed 113 N. Y. 670, 21 N. E. 1116; McCann v. Railroad Co., 117 N. Y. 505, 23 N. E. 164. As before observed, the finding of the jury upon this question is favorable to the plaintiff. There is a sharp conflict in the evidence respecting the conduct of the conductor, and also tending to establish that the. injury was the result solely of the boy's acts; but there was sufficient to submit to the jury, and they have found that a case was made out, and such finding is conclusive upon us. The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed.