Case Name: Henry H. Sias et al., as Administrators of Charles H. McKee, Deceased, Appellants, v. Rochester Railway Company, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-12-20
Citations: 169 N.Y. 118
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry H. Sias et al., as Administrators of Charles H. McKee, Deceased, Appellants, v. Rochester Railway Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 169
Pages: 118–129

Head Matter:
Henry H. Sias et al., as Administrators of Charles H. McKee, Deceased, Appellants, v. Rochester Railway Company, Respondent.
Negligence—"Non-liability op Street Railway Company for Injuries to Passenger of Company Operating Cars over Tracks of the Former. Where it appears, in an action to recover damages caused "by the alleged negligence of a street railway company, that plaintiffs’ intestate was riding upon defendant’s tracks in a car belonging to and operated by another street railway company with which defendant had made a traffic arrangement permitting it for a compensation to run cars over its tracks ; that his contract of carriage was made with such company and that he received injuries resulting in death, while standing on the platform and projecting his person beyond the side of the car by being struck by a tree growing in close proximity to the track, a nonsuit is properly granted, inasmuch as he was not a passenger upon a car of the defendant and it owed him no duty as such.
Sias v. Rochester Ry. Oo., 51 App. Div. 618, affirmed.
(Argued November 1, 1901;
decided December 20, 1901.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered April 18, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term.
The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Henry Purcell for appellants.
It having been conceded upon the trial that the plaintiffs’ intestate died as the result of the injury sustained in the accident in question, there is no conclusive presumption of law that because the death occurred more than a year and a day thereafter it did not result from the accident. (Purcell v. Lauer, 14 App. Div. 33; Schlichting v. Wintgen, 25 Hun, 626; Sias v. R. Ry. Co., 92 Hun, 140.) The question of the defendant’s negligence should have been submitted to the jury. (Vail v. B. R. R. Co., 147 N. Y. 377; Stierle v. U. Ry. Co., 156 N. Y. 70; Gray v. R. C. & B. R. R. Co., 61 Hun, 212; 15 N. Y. Supp. 927; Herdt v. R. C. & B. R. R. Go., 20 N. Y. Supp. 346; Holbrook v. U. & S. R. R. Co., 12 N. Y. 236; Benthin v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 24 App. Div. 303; Tucker v. Buffalo Ry. Co., 53 App. Div. 571; Brown v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 42 App. Div. 548; Mohr v. L. V. R. R. Co., 55 App. Div. 176; Baker v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 28 App. Div. 316.) The question of the contributory negligence of the decedent in standing upon the platform and protruding his head outside the line of the car should have been submitted to the jury. (Holan v. B. C. & N. R. R. Co., 87 N. Y. 63; Vail v. B. R. R. Co., 147 N. Y. 377; Wood v. B. C. R. R. Co., 5 App. Div. 492; Bradley v. S. Ave. R. R. Co., 34 App. Div. 284; Hastings v. C. C. R. R. Co., 7 App. Div. 312; Graham v. M. Ry. Co., 149 N. Y. 336; Goodrich v. P. & N. Y C. & R. R. Co., 29 Hun, 50; Francis v. N. Y. S. Co., 114 N. Y. 384; Connolly v. K. Ice Co., 114 N. Y. 104; Holbrook v. U. & S. R. R. Co., 12 N. Y. 236.) A finding by the jury that the relation of carrier and passenger existed between the decedent and the defendant is justified by the evidence. (Commercial Bank v. Pfeiffer, 108 N. Y. 242; Miller v. Moore, 1 E. D. Smith, 739; Callahan v. Matthews, 87 Hun, 527; Chapman v. N. H. R. R. Co., 19 N. Y. 341; Colegrove v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 492; Barrett v. T. Ave. R. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 628; Startz v. P. & N. Y. C. & R. Co., 16 N. Y. Supp. 810; Wylde v. N. R. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 156; Hart v. R. & S. R. R. Co., 8 N. Y. 37.)
Charles J. Bissell• for respondent.
The trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion for a nonsuit, and prop? erly denied the plaintiffs’ motion to submit any of the questions of fact to the jury. (2 Hawkins’ Pleas of the Crown, chap. 23, § 88; 4 Black. Com. 198; Schlichting v. Wintgen, 25 Hun, 626; Purcell v. Lauer, 14 App. Div. 33; Littlewood v. Mayor, etc., 89 N. Y. 24; Murch v. C. R. R. Co., 9 Foster [N. H.], 9; Fletcher v. B. & M. R. R. Co., 1 Allen, 9; Mahoney v. A. & St. L. R. R. Co., 63 Me. 68; Bissell v. M. S. & N. I. R. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 258; 1 Redf. on Railways [6th ed.], 142, 144; Fisher v. M. E. R. Co., 34 Hun, 433; Miller v. N. Y., L. & W. R. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 118.) The non-suit was properly granted because upon the whole evidence the case failed to show that the plaintiffs’ intestate was free from contributory negligence. Hpon the contrary, the evidence showed affirmatively that his negligence did contribute to bring about the accident. (Todd v. O. C. & F. R. R. R. Co., 3 Allen, 13; 7 Allen, 18; P. & C. R. R. Co. v. McClurg, 56 Penn. St. 294; P. & C. R. R. Co. v. Andrews, 39 Md. 329; I. & C. R. R. Co. v. Rutherford, 29 Ind. 82; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Sickings, 5 Bush [Ky.], 1; Holbrook v. U. & S. R. R. Co., 12 N. Y. 236; Dale v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 468; Hallahan v. N. Y, L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 102 N. Y. 194; Breen v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 109 N. Y. 297.)

Opinion:
Gray, J.
The action was brought to recover damages of the defendant, the Rochester Railway Company, for causing the death of the plaintiffs' intestate through negligence. The defendant operated a street railway in the city of Rochester and the accident happened upon its Lake avenue line. The tracks were located between the curb" of the street and the sidewalk, and, for the whole distance, were, more or less, close to the trees, which were grown upon the sides of the avenue. By -a traffic arrangement between the defendant and the Rochester Electric Railway Company, the latter, which operated an electric trolley road from Ontario Beach to the city line, ran its cars over the former's tracks to points within the city limits. There was no lease of either road and each company operated, and managed, its own trains of cars. At the time of the accident, the deceased was riding upon one of the cars of the Rochester Electric Railway Company, as the proofs conclusively show, and at a point upon the defendant's Lake avenue line, while standing upon the platform and projecting his person beyond the side of the car, he was struck upon the head by a tree, growing in close proximity to the track and received the injuries, which were alleged to have, subsequently, caused his death. The tree stood within one foot and seven inches of the rail. Notwithstanding that the contract of the deceased for his carriage was with the Rochester Electric Railway Company, it is sought to make the defendant liable for the results of the accident and the negligence relied upon to create the liability consists in the construction of its railway in such close proximity to a tree. It sustained no contractual relations to the deceased and none such could be predicated upon a mere traffic arrangement between the two companies, which permitted the carrier of the deceased, for a compensa- < tion, to run its cars over the defendant's tracks. The defendant had the right to construct its tracks as, and where, it did and what duty of care and precaution it was under, for the safe operation of its cars, it owed to its passengers. How it performed its duty we are not informed and it is immaterial here. We know that cars could pass the tree. If there was any negligence, from which the plaintiff's intestate suffered, it could only have been in the manner in which the Rochester Electric Railway Company operated its cars upon such a track. If the construction of its cars was defective; or if their operation and management were such as not to furnish adequate security for passengers, then that company would be at fault. We do not think that the defendant is chargeable, upon the proofs, with the neglect of any duty owing to the plaintiffs' intestate and, for that reason, the dismissal of the complaint was proper.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.