Case Name: Catherine Wynn v. Central Park, N. & E. R. R. Co.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896-11-06
Citations: 75 N.Y. St. Rep. 987
Docket Number: 
Parties: Catherine Wynn v. Central Park, N. & E. R. R. Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 75
Pages: 987–994

Head Matter:
Catherine Wynn v. Central Park, N. & E. R. R. Co.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
November 6, 1896.)
Carriers—Injuries to passengers—Instructions.
Where a passenger was injured by the breaking of a brake chain in a street car, but there is no evidence that any other x>r safer appliances were in use, it is error, in an action for the injury, to charge that the appliances used by defendant must be the best that skill and science have contrived, and which are in practical use.” Williams, J., dissenting, on the ground that the instruction referred to the condition of the chain.
Appeal from court of common pleas, trial term.
Action by Catherine Wynn against the Central Park, North & East River Railroad Company to recover damages for injuries sustained while a passenger on a street car of defendant’s line. From a judgment upon a verdict for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial upon the minutes of the court, defendant appeals.
The facts are stated by Mr. Justice WILLIAMS as follows:
“ The action was brought to recover damages for injuries to the plaintiff alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The accident occurred upon defendant’s street railroad on Fifty-Ninth Street, New York City, November 2, 1887. The plaintiff entered a car about 7 p. m. at Tenth Avenue, and started east on Fifty-Ninth Street. The car was drawn by a pair of horses, the driver being the only person in charge of the car. There was no conductor. The car was heavily loaded, some of the passengers standing up. The plaintiff was seated. Between Eighth and Seventh avenues the car was driven quite rapidly, the driver whipping the horses so that they galloped. At Seventh avenue the car approached a considerable down grade, which extended from Seventh to Sixth avenue. At Seventh avenue, in order to check the speed of the car, which was going quite rapidly, the driver applied the brake with such force that the brake chain, was broken. There was then nothing to check the momentum of the car, and it went down the grade with increasing velocity, the horses being driven on a run by the driver to keep-them away from the car. At Sixth avenue the car struck a substantially level road, and continued on to Fifth avenue, where it collided with another car standing still on the defendant’s track. As a result of the collision the plaintiff' was: thrown from her seat and received the injuries, damages for vzhich this action was brought. One of the links of the brake chain was broken, and the connection was thereby severed between the brake handle and the brake, so that the brake was useless, and could not be used to check the speed of the car. The absence of contributory negligence on the part of • the plaintiff was not disputed. The only questions in controversy on the trial were the alleged negligence on the part of the defendant, and the amount of damages the plaintiff was-entitled to recover for the injuries received by her, if entitled to recover at all.”
Henry Thompson, for appellant; Clarence Lexow and Charles K. Beekman, for respondent.

Opinion:
PATTERSON, J.
—The immediate cause of the accident which resulted in the injuries sustained by the plaintiff was. the breaking of a link in the chain connected with, and forming part of, the breaking apparatus attached to the car. The-negligence imputed to the defendant was not only in the alleged improper conduct of the driver in driving at a dangerous rate of speed, but also in allowing the car to be used with a breaking equipment out of order or imperfect. Testimony was given relating both to the construction of the chain, and as to an inspection of the running gear of which it was part. It was: shown that -it consisted of 21 1-inch and 7 2-inch links. The small links were § iron, and the large ones of diameter, and were part of the same braking appliance, in character, that was used on all the cars of the company. There was no testimony to the point that the chain was not, if in good condition, adequate to any strain that might be put upon it in applying the brake,'or that, if in proper condition, it would not suffice as an appliance -suitable and sufficient for the purpose for which it was used, or that there was any safer or better appliance in use. On that point the only issue before the jury was as to the condition of the chain, and the care and prudence exercised by the defendant in inspecting or examining it to ascertain its condition prior to the car being sent out on the day the accident happened. Notwithstanding that situation of the case, there was imported into the trial an element, the introduction of which could not but prejudice the defendant and raise a false issue. The plaintiff requested, the court to - charge that " the appliances used by the company must be the best appliances which skill and science has contrived, and which are in practical use." That request was complied with, and an exception was taken. That statement of the law was reiterated by the court. In comlnenting upon the subject of the obligation of the plaintiff to prove that the negligence of the defendant's servant was the sole cause of the injury, the learned court again said to the jury :
"It will be necessary for you to determine from the evidence whether the appliances used to operate the brake were the best which skill and science had contrived, and which were in practical use."
Whether that is quite an accurate statement of the abstract rule of law, it is not now material to inquire. That a railroad company may be chargeable with negligence to one injured from a failure to introduce improvements in its apparatus which have been tested and found materially to "contribute to the safety of passengers, and which it is reasonably practicable to adopt, is true. Smith v. railroad Co., 19 N. Y. 127. But there was no evidence in this case to raise the question of there being any other or different or superior apparatus in use, with which the defendant could have equipped its car, and that would have tended to insure greater safety to the passengers upon it. All the testimony on the .subject of the nature of the breaking apparatus was in one direction. Three witnesses called by the defendant testified on that topic. Gerard swore that he knew of no other method of applying power to stop a horse car than the one used. Bomaine, a car-builder, swore that he knew of no other or better way of working brakes than that used on this car, and that it was the method in use on all cars, whether operated by horse power or by electricity, and he had never heard of the breaking of one of the large links in a chain. Oakley, an assistant superintendent of the Madison Avenue Line, never heard, in all his experience, of a chain breaking in the way the one on this car did. There is nothing to contradict or impair the effect of this evidence. There is nothing to go to the jury on the question of the general character or sufficiency of the chain and brake, if it Avere in good order Avhen the car AArent into service the day of the accident. The charge of the learned judge opened an issue that was not in the case, and we cannot say that it may not have been upon some notion that a better braking apparatus, in design or general character, should have been furnished, that the jury acted in finding their verdict.
For this reason, and Avithout considering the many other errors assigned, the judgment should be reversed, Avith costs to the appellant to abide'the event.
MALT BBUFTT, P. J., and O'BBIEM and IYGBAHAM, JJ., concur.