Case Name: Samuel J. Waddy, Respondent, v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-03-14
Citations: 156 A.D. 30
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel J. Waddy, Respondent, v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 156
Pages: 30–31

Head Matter:
Samuel J. Waddy, Respondent, v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant.
Second Department,
March 14, 1913.
Railroads — injury to passenger thrown from car rounding loop — evidence:— negligence — contributory negligence.
In an action by a passenger against a street railway company to recover for personal injuries, it appeared that as one of the defendant’s ears was passing around a loop to reach its stopping place the conductor called “ all off,” and the plaintiff passed out upon the front of the platform, and while standing there he( was thrown from the ear and injured. There was no evidence that he used any care to maintain himself on the platform or that there was any violent starting up of the car. Evidence held, insufficient to establish the negligence of the defendant or the freedom of the plaintiff from contributory negligence.
Appeal by the defendant, the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, from á judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 23d day of October, 1912, upon the verdict of a jury for $250, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 13th day of November, 1912, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
D. A. Marsh [George D. Yeomans with him on the brief], for the appellant,
Sterling Pierson, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The plaintiff states his belief that there was a car ahead of the one in which he was riding when he went on the front platform. The evidence is that such was not the case. As a person experienced by long use of cars- entering upon the loop and stopping, he knew that the car was passing around the loop to reach its stopping- place, but that it had not come to such a point, and he also knew- that the conductor's call "All off" meant that he should'alight when'the car stopped. Experience also should have taught him that a car passing around such a loop often decreases and accelerates its speed with resultant disturbance to the equilibrium of standing passengers, and he should have taken some precaution to maintain himself on the platform. There is no evidence whatever that he did use such care, and although he was thrown off, it does not appear that there was any violent starting up of the car that produced it. Hence the negligence of the defendant is not proven, nor is the plaintiff shown to have been free from contributory negligence. (Ayers v. Rochester R. Co., 156 N. Y. 104; Dwyer v. Auburn & Syracuse Electric R. R. Co., 131 App. Div. 477; Black v. Third Avenue R. R. Co., 2 id. 387.)
The judgment and order should he reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide-the event.
Jenks, P. J., Hirschberg) Thomas, Oarr and Rich, JJ., concurred.
Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.