Case Name: Lyman C. Vroman, Appellant, v. The Houston, West Street & Pavonia Ferry Railroad Co., Respondent
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-02
Citations: 7 Misc. 234
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lyman C. Vroman, Appellant, v. The Houston, West Street & Pavonia Ferry Railroad Co., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 234–236

Head Matter:
Lyman C. Vroman, Appellant, v. The Houston, West Street & Pavonia Ferry Railroad Co., Respondent.
(City Court of New York—General Term,
February, 1894.)
Plaintiff "boarded one of defendant’s open cars, and stood for some time on the rear platform, smoking, when, some people having got out, he undertook to pass along the side step to reach one of the vacated seats and was injured by his head coming in contact with one of the elevated railroad columns. In an action for such injury, held, that the complaint was properly dismissed; that defendant was not shown to be guilty of negligence; that it was not responsible for the presence of the columns nor for any injuries caused by them. (Fitzsimons, J., dissents.)
Appeal by plaintiff from judgment entered after the dismissal of the complaint at trial term.
Q. D. Lrnnb, for appellant.
Ooudert Brothers and J. Kling, for respondent.

Opinion:
Ehrlich, Ch. J.
On the evening of June 13,1892, the plaintiff, with some friends, boarded an open summer car of the defendant having steps running along upon the outside. The plaintiff stood for a time on the rear platform, smoking. As the car neared Forty-second street some people got out, and the plaintiff undertook to proceed along the side step to occupy one of the seats vacated. The change was voluntary on his part, and while he was attempting to consummate it his head was brought in contact with an elevated railroad column and badly injured.
At the trial the complaint was dismissed on motion of the defendant's attorney, and we think the dismissal was right. The defendant was guilty of no act of negligence and did nothing by means 'of which the plaintiff was injured. The defendant was not responsible for the presence of the elevated railroad columns, nor for any injuries caused by them.
The case resembles that of Murphy v. Ninth Avenue Railroad Co., 6 Misc. Rep. 298, in which it was held that the defendant, under similar circumstances, was not liable. The distinction between the rule decided in the cases cited by the appellant and that which governs this case is clearly laid down in the Murphy case ; and for the reasons stated the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
Van Wyck, J., concurs.