Case Name: Vincenzo Zeccardi, Respondent, v. The Yonkers Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-12-20
Citations: 190 N.Y. 389
Docket Number: 
Parties: Vincenzo Zeccardi, Respondent, v. The Yonkers Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 190
Pages: 389–394

Head Matter:
Vincenzo Zeccardi, Respondent, v. The Yonkers Railroad Company, Appellant.
Carriers — When Not Liable for Assault on Passenger by Employee. While one during his journey may alight from a railroad car without losing his status as a passenger, and the company is an absolute guarantor of the safety of a passenger against the assault of its employees, it is not liable for an assault upon a passenger who, alighting from the car for the purpose of intervening to end a fight between the conductor and another passenger, was assaulted by the motorman, since his injuries resulted from an undertaking entirely disconnected with the contract of carriage.
Zeccardi v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 113 App. Div. 649, reversed.
(Argued December 2, 1907;
decided December 20, 1907.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 15, 1906, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term and granting a new trial.
The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Charles F. Brown, Anthony J. Frnest and Henry A. Robinson for appellant.
As a matter of law, the plaintiff Zeccardi terminated his contract relation as a passenger when he left the street car. (Platt v. F. S. St., etc., R. Co., 4 T. & C. 406; 2 Hun, 124; McKay v. Hudson River Line, 56 App. Div. 201; Reilly v. N. Y. City Ry. Co., 91 N. Y. Supp. 319 ; 3 Thomp. on Neg. 624, § 3186; Creamer v. W. E. Ry. Co., 156 Mass. 320; Duchemin v. B. El. Ry. Co., 186 Mass. 353; Buzby v. P. T. Co., 125 Penn. St. 559; Conway v. St. Ry. Co., 87 Me. 283; Fielders v. N. J. St. Ry. Co., 68 N. J. L. 343; Harten v. St. Ry. Co., 18 App. Cas. 260; W. C. St. Ry. Co. v. Walsh, 78 Ill. App. 595.) As a matter of law, it was beyond the scope of the motorman’s employment to assault Zeccardi upon the street. (Priest v. H. R. R. R. Co., 65 N. Y. 589; Girvin v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 166 N. Y. 289; Penny v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 34 App. Div. 10 ; Ryan v. H. R. R. R. Co., 1 J. & S. 137; McGilvray v. W. E. St. Ry. Co., 164 Mass. 122; C. Ry. Co., v. Peacock, 69 Md. 257; Palmer v. W. S. Ry. Co., 131 N. C. 251; Crocker v. N. I., etc., Ry. Co., 24 Conn. 249; Chicago & E. R. R. Co. v. Stratton, 111 Ill. App. 142 , Hanson v. U., etc., St. Ry. Co., 75 Ill. App. 474.),
F. X. Donoghue for respondent.
The plaintiff having paid his fare after entering the defendant’s car, the relation of carrier and passenger was thus created and he was entitled to be carried to his destination and to be protected against unlawful injuries from defendant’s employees, and whether he was a passenger or not was a cpiestion for the jury. (Palmeri v. M. R. Co., 133 N. Y. 261.) Whether the conductor was acting within the scope of his authority or not in causing the arrest of the plaintiff, the defendant is liable for damages. (Thomp. on Neg. § 3186; Barry v. U. R. R. Co., 105 App. Div. 520; Collins v. Butler, 179 N. Y. 161; Newson v. I. S. R. R. Co., 95 App. Div. 114; Lynch v. M. E. Ry. Co., 90 N. Y. 77; Dwinelle v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 120 N. Y. 117; Stewart v. B. & C. R. R. Co., 90 N. Y. 588; Palmeri v. M. R. Co., 133 N. Y. 261; Gillespie v. B. H. R. R. Co., 178 N. Y. 347.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant's car. The conductor became involved in an altercation with another passenger, a friend of the plaintiff's, about the payment of fare. That passenger was ejected from the car, and he and the conductor were engaged in a light outside of the car upon the ground, the car being stopped at the time. The plaintiff testified : " The conductor and the other fellow were in the crowd. I did not know what the quarrel was for. When the car stopped I went over to separate the light. Before I could reach those two men the motorman took hold of me and knocked me down and punched me." Subsequently the conductor charged the plaintiff, in a Police Court, with having assaulted him. The plaintiff was acquitted. For the assault and false charge the plaintiff sues the defendant railroad company. We are of opinion the company was not liable. A carrier is an absolute guarantor of the safety of its passengers against the assaults of its employees while it is performing its contract of carriage. (Stewart v. Brooklyn & Crosstown R. R. Co., 90 N. Y. 588.) It is also true that a passenger, during his journey, may alight from the car without losing his status as passenger. (Parsons v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R. Co., 113 N. Y. 362.) In this case, however, the wrongs for which the plaintiff seeks redress were suffered when the plaintiff entered upon an enterprise totally disconnected with the carriage. His intervention to end the quarrel which was taking place on the street between the conductor and the other passenger may have been, and doubtless was, on his statement, praiseworthy, but it occurred neither on the defendant's car nor on its property, and was a matter wholly foreign and disconnected with the defendant's contract of carriage. The fact that one of the combatants was the defendant's conductor did not alter the relation the defendant would have borne to it had it been a contest entirely between strangers. Had the plaintiff been assaulted for trying to alight from the car or trying to again obtain entrance in it a very different question would be presented. His injuries were occasioned during his voluntary intervention in a quarrel, as to which the defendant owed him no duty. He, doubtless, should recover from the person.who inflicted the wrong, but he cannot hold the. defendant liable.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment entered upon the nonsuit affirmed, Avitli costs in all courts.