Case Name: EDWARDS v. NEW JERSEY & H. R. RY. & FERRY CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-05-19
Citations: 129 N.Y.S. 717
Docket Number: 
Parties: EDWARDS v. NEW JERSEY & H. R. RY. & FERRY CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 129
Pages: 717–720

Head Matter:
EDWARDS v. NEW JERSEY & H. R. RY. & FERRY CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 19, 1911.)
:i. Carriers (§ 347 )—Passengers—Contributory Negligence.
It is not contributory negligence as a matter of law for a passenger to ride on the running board of an open trolley car.
fEd. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 1379; Dec. Dig. § 347. ]
■2. Carriers (§ 295 )—Carriage of Passengers—Negligence—Evidence.
A passenger on a crowded open trolley car stood on the running board, instead of occupying an uncomfortable position between the seats. The conductor, on approaching a trestle, warned him of the danger thereof, and he stepped inside. After the car passed the trestle, he stepped onto the running board again, with the knowledge of the conductor, and he was injured by being struck by a girder of a bridge, of which the conductor gave no warning. Held, that the conductor was negligent in failing to repeat the warning to the passenger.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 1199; Dec. Dig. § 295. ]
3. Carriers (§ 347 )—Injuries to Passengers—Contributory Negligence.
The failure of the passenger to observe the bridge girder in time to avoid injury was not negligence as a matter of law.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Dec. Dig. § 347. ]
4. Carriers (§ 347 )—Injuries to Passengers—Contributory Negligence.
Since the. street car company must he deemed to have assented to the passenger resuming his place on the running board, it could not be said as a matter of law that in doing so he assumed any risk, except of known dangers and of the ordinary motion of the car.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 1379; Dec. Dig. § 347. ]
Ingraham, P. J., and Dowling, J., dissenting.
Action by Dean G. Edwards against the New Jersey & Hudson River Railway & Ferry Company. Heard on motion by plaintiff for a new trial on exceptions to the dismissal of the complaint. Ordered to be heard by the Appellate Division in the first instance.
Exceptions sustained, and motion for new trial granted.
See, also, 136 App. Div. 931, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1122.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and CEARKÉ, SCOTT, MILLER, and DOWLING, JJ.
Burt L. Rich, for plaintiff.
C. E. Thornall, for defendant.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs 1907 to date; & Rep’r Indexes-.

Opinion:
MILLER, J.
It is not contributory negligence as matter of law for a passenger to ride on the running board of an open trolley car. Kramer v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 190 N. Y. 310, 83 N. E. 35.
The plaintiff had been warned by the conductor on approaching the first trestle, and that warning, aside from the general duty of the defendant to give warning of unknown dangers, may have been considered by him as an assurance of safety. The conductor knew that the plaintiff and others had stepped down on the running board after passing the first trestle. The defendant's evidence tends to show that the conductor gave warning of the approach to the bridge where the accident happened, but that evidence was disputed, and presented a question of fact for the jury. If that question were resolved in the plaintiff's favor, it would be at least a question of fact whether, considering the speed of the car, its swaying motion, and the short distance between the running board and the bridge girder, the conductor was negligent in not repeating the warning.
If a passenger, permitted to ride on a running board, has a right to rely upon being warned of an unknown danger, and if the-, first warning given was any assurance that it would be repeated in the case of a like danger, the plaintiff's failure to observe the girder in time to avoid being hit was not negligence as matter of law.
The plaintiff had the choice of riding on the running board, or in a cramped and uncomfortable position between the seats. He testified that the car was so crowded that people were sitting on the edges of the seats with their knees against the back's of the seats in front, and that, becausé of that fact, he was unable to get a good foothold at the place where he stepped up into the car. Of course, if he had gained a position of safety, and tnen had voluntarily abandoned it for a place of danger, a different question might arise; but, upon his evidence, the defendant must be deemed to have assented to his resuming his place on the running board, and it cannot be said as matter of law that in doing that' he assumed any risk, except of known dangers, and of the ordinary motion of the car.
The exceptions should be sustained, and the motion for a new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event.
CLARKE and SCOTT, JJ., concur.