Case Name: GATENS v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1903-12-30
Citations: 85 N.Y.S. 967
Docket Number: 
Parties: GATENS v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 85
Pages: 967–973

Head Matter:
(89 App. Div. 311.)
GATENS v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
December 30, 1903.)
1. Carriers — Street Railroads - Injuries to Passengers — Dangerous ' Position—Platform.
Plaintiff took passage on a street car which was so crowded that he was compelled to stand on the rear platform and hold on by the hand rail. The conductor accepted his fare while in this xiosition, and without notice to plaintiff the car was driven around a curve in the track without slackening speed, in violation of a rule of the company requiring the speed to be reduced one-half in rounding curves, and plaintiff was violently thrown from the car and injured. 0W, that such facts were sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the carrier entitling plaintiff to recover for his injuries.
Woodward, J., dissenting.
H1. See Carriers, vol. 9, Cent. Dig. § 1202.
Appeal from Trial Term, Kings County.
Action by William E. Gatens against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. Erom a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and JENICS, WOODWARD, HIRSCHBERG, and HOOKER, JJ.
Bayard H. Ames (Arthur Ofner, on the" brief), for appellant.
S. S. Whitehouse, for respondent

Opinion:
HIRSCHBERG, J.
The judgment recovered by the plaintiff is for damages because of personal injuries sustained by him on being thrown from the rear platform of one of the defendant's cars while rounding a curve on Fourth avenue, at or near Fifteenth street, in the borough of Manhattan. He testified that the car was crowded inside, all the seats and standing room being occupied, and that the conductor made no objection to his standing upon the platform, but, on the contrary, collected his fare there. He did not know of the existence of the curve, but was standing at the time with his back to the body of the car, holding on by the hand rail. The car was going very fast as it approached the curve, and without any slackening of speed struck the curve very forcibly, breaking his hold upon the hand rail, and throwing him so violently into the street that he remained unconscious for a considerable period of time after he was taken to a hospital. The plaintiff's version of the occurrence was corroborated by a companion, who testified that the car was going very fast as it approached the curve, and that it did not slacken its speed at all. This companion further testified to the fact that he had his arm around a stanchion, and managed to hold on as the car rounded the curve, although he was thrown towards the door .of the car by the impetus. As against this evidence, the motorman testified that he had reduced the speed of the car at the curve to one-half, in accordance with a rule of the company, and another witness for the defendant testified that the car was going at that point at a regular rate of speed, adding, "I think it slowed up going around the curve, because they all do." The conductor testified that the car was behind time; that he was standing in the car, collecting fares, at the time of the accident; and that up to that time the car was going at the usual rate. That the car went around the curve at a sufficient rate of speed to throw the plaintiff off, and that it did in fact throw him off, notwithstanding his efforts to hold fast by the hand rail, is undisputed. No evidence was given tending to show that the plaintiff received any warning of the approach of the curve, the defense being predicated mainly upon the evidence of the conductor to the effect that there was room inside of the car at the time, and that there were even vacant seats. The case was submitted to the jury in a charge very favorable to the defendant, to which charge the defendant took no material exception, and the verdict must be deemed to establish in the plaintiff's favor such facts as were in dispute.
Assuming, as the jury has found, that there was no room for the plaintiff inside the car, the defendant, on accepting him as a platform passenger, certainly owed him the duty of transporting him in such a manner as to render his position on the platform reasonably safe; and it cannot be said that there was no evidence which would justify a jury* in concluding that that duty was neglected. If the jury believed the evidence of the plaintiff and his companion that the car approached the curve at a high rate of speed, which was not reduced in going around it, then they would be entitled to find that the motorman negligently violated the rule of the company which required him to reduce the rate one-half at that point, and this finding alone would be sufficient to support the claim of negligence. The question of the liability of the defendant under circumstances similar to those herein presented has been recently considered by the writer, and the cases collated, in Sheeron v. Coney Island & B. R. R. Co., 85 N. Y. Supp. 958, and in the dissenting opinion in Moskowitz v. Brook lyn Heights R. R. Co., 85 N. Y. Supp. 960. The numerous authorities need not be repeated here. They seem to be quite uniform in holding that the passenger who has been accepted as such upon the platform of a crowded car may assume that it is a reasonably safe place to ride, and that the transportation company owes him the duty of guarding his person from danger, at least in so far as ordinary care will accomplish that result. Many of the authorities enjoin the exercise of great care in the preservation of the safety of such a passenger, and some require the exercise of extraordinary care, but in most of them stress is laid upon the obligation of giving some warning to the passenger thus dangerously situated before exposing him to the peril of an unknown curve in the road. Thus, in Wilder v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 10 App. Div. 364, 41 N. Y. Supp. 931, this court said, through Mr. Justice Bradley (page 367, 10 App. Div., page 932, 41 N. Y. Supp.) :
"But, if warning to passengers in the car was reasonably necessary for their protection or safety, it was the duty of the defendant to give them the benefit of it."
In Lucas v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 56 App. Div. 405, 67 N. Y. Supp. 833, the court said (page 407, 56 App. Div., page 834, 67 N. Y. Supp.) :
"The defendant, having permitted the plaintiff to go upon its car, and taken his fare, obligated himself to exercise extraordinary care to transport him to the point of his destination without injury. It could not expose him to unreasonable danger, even though he stood upon the platform of the ear. Graham v. Manhattan R. Co., 149 N. Y. 336 [43 N. E. 917]. When it was about to run its car around the curve at the speed set out in the record, it owed the plaintiff a duty of informing him of that fact, or indicating to him in some way that he must exercise at that point increased care for his own safety. This the verdict of the jury establishes that the defendant did not do, and the failure to perform this duty, the plaintiff being free from negligence, renders it liable. Dillon v. Forty-Second St. R. Co., 28 App. Div. 404 [51 N. Y. Supp. 145]; Schaefer v. Union R. Co., 29 App. Div. 262 [51 N. Y. Supp. 431]; Lansing v. Coney Island & B. R. R. Co., 16 App. Div. 146 [41 N. Y. Supp. 120]."
In Schaefer v. Union Railway Co., 29 App. Div. 261, 51 N. Y. Supp. 431, the court said (page 263, 29 App. Div., page 432, 51 N. Y. Supp.) :
"That the car was permitted to go down the-incline at a very high rate of speed; that it was crowded with passengers inside and out; that while going at that rate of speed it struck this curve; that the passengers had no warning of the approach of the curve; and that the car lurched so that several passengers besides the plaintiff were thrown down—was established by the evidence, and might have been found by the jury. Upon those facts the jury might well have predicated negligence on the part of the defendant."
In Graham v. Manhattan R. Co., 149 N. Y. 336, 43 N. E. 917, the Court of Appeals stated the rule applicable to this class of cases to be that, where a person is taken upon a train for transportation upon a platform as a passenger, the company was "bound to exercise a high degree of care to make the platform safe for his occupation, and he was entitled to assume that it would." The court added (page 342, 149 N. Y., page 919, 43 N. E.) :
"Even if the plaintiff assumed the ordinary risk which attended riding upon the platform, he had a right to assume that the defendant's servants would cause no unreasonable disturbance of the crowd, íind that the can: were so constructed as not to render his position dangerous from their proximity to each other in passing over any portion of the road, or at least, if such danger existed, that he would be apprised of it."
The rule which requires that a passenger who is permitted by » . common carrier tc occupy a dangerous place for hire to be notified that he is approaching a part of the road where an unusual effort on his part will be required to avert peril which is unknown to him is a salutary one, and many other cases than those referred to might be - cited in its support. If no such obligation existed, a very large number of the patrons of the transportation companies in the city of New York would be exposed to constant danger, and the condition would be fulfilled which Mr. Justice Cullen reprobated in Dochtermann v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 32 App. Div. 13, 15, 52 N. Y. Supp. 1051, viz., "that a carrier may successfully assert that in the usual and proper management of its road a passenger must necessarily and ordinarily risk the safety of his body and bones."
The appeal presents no other question than the sufficiency of the evidence, and it follows that the judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
GOODRICH, P. J., and HOOKER, J., concur; JENKS, J., in •result.