Case Name: Charles Distler, App'lt, v. Long Island Railroad Company, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-05-14
Citations: 60 N.Y. St. Rep. 216
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles Distler, App’lt, v. Long Island Railroad Company, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 60
Pages: 216–217

Head Matter:
Charles Distler, App’lt, v. Long Island Railroad Company, Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed May 14, 1894.)
Negligence—Contributory.
A person, who attempts to board a moving train upon a steam railroad though the conductor calls to him to get on, is guilty of contributory negligence. ,,
Appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint.
Mirabeau L. Towns, for app’lt; IF. 0. Beecher, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Dykman, J.
This action .is based upon negligence. The plaintiff was nonsuited at the circuit, and from the judgment dismissing his complaint he has appealed to this court. As a special train upon the defendant's road was approaching the East New York station it slowed down for another railroad crossing, without intending to stop at the station. It was not scheduled to stop there. As the train approached the crossing and the station, which was near, the plaintiff was waiting to board it, and the conductor called out to him to get on. As he jumped upon the step of the car it started suddenly forward, and he was thrown to the ground, and seriously injured. The plaintiff was nonsuited at the circuit, and has appealed from the judgment dismissing his complaint.
It is exceedingly hazardous to attempt to board a train upon a steam railroad when in motion. According to the law as settled in this state, it is presumably negligent, and, unless such presumption of negligence is overcome by testimony offered by the plaintiffp there can be no recovery in such a case. " To excuse such an act, and free the plaintiff from the charge of contributory negligence, there must be a coercion of circumstances, which did not leave the passenger the free and untrammeled possession of his faculties and judgment." Solomon v. Manhattan Railway Co., 103 N. Y. 437 ; 3 St. Rep. 636; Hunter v. C. & S. V. Railroad Co., 126 N. Y. 18; 36 St. Rep. 367. In this case there was no coercion of circumstances, and the presumption of contributory neglihence must prevail against the plaintiff! The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.