Case Name: SALTZMAN v. BROOKLYN CITY R. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-12-01
Citations: 26 N.Y.S. 311
Docket Number: 
Parties: SALTZMAN v. BROOKLYN CITY R. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 26
Pages: 311–312

Head Matter:
(73 Hun, 567.)
SALTZMAN v. BROOKLYN CITY R. CO.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
December 1, 1893.)
Carriers—Injury to Passenger—Negligence—Question for Jury.
In an action against a street-railroad company for personal injuries, the case should go to the jury where plaintiff proved, and defendant denied, that plaintiff was received as a passenger on a car which was so filled that he had to stand on the rear platform, that the platform became so crowded that he had to stand on the side step, and that the car increased its speed so that he was jolted off and injured.
Appeal from circuit court, King8 county.
Action by Jonas Saltzman against the Brooklyn City Bailroad Company for personal injuries. From a judgment entered on a verdict for plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before BARNARD, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.
Morris & Whitehouse, for appellant.
Julius Klanke, (Roswell H. Carpenter, of counsel,) for respondent.

Opinion:
BARNARD, P. J.
On the 14th of March, 1892, the defendant received the plaintiff upon its car, which was entirely filled inside, so that he was compelled to stand upon the platform in the rear. The car stopped at frequent intervals to receive more passengers, so that the plaintiff was crowded to one side of the platform, and then to the step. At this time the horses attached to the car began to run faster, and the car jounced up and down so that the plaintiff was thrown from the platform and injured. Under these facts, proven by the plaintiff and denied by the defendant, the case was one for the jury. Lehr v. Railroad Co., 118 N. Y. 556, 23 N. E. 889. The very statement of the facts presents a case where the contributory-negligence upon plaintiff's part shows a case for the jury. This is the general rule, and, the particular facts in the case furnish no exceptions to its appliance here. Assuming the facts as necessarily found by the jury, there is no basis for even a question as to the plaintiff's negligence. He got upon the car at defendant's invitation as a passenger, and it was so overloaded that he was forced to stand upon the step. While in this insecure position, the defendant increased its speed so as to jolt the passenger from his standing place, whereby he was injured. It was proper to permit the surgeon to answer that in his opinion the injury received was liable to grow worse. Alberti v. Railroad Co., 118 N. Y. 77, 23 N. E. 35. The judgment and order denying new trial should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.