Case Name: Marie Fogassi, Respondent, v. The New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co., Appellant
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-06
Citations: 13 Misc. 102
Docket Number: 
Parties: Marie Fogassi, Respondent, v. The New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 102–111

Head Matter:
Marie Fogassi, Respondent, v. The New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co., Appellant.
(New York Common Pleas—General Term,
June, 1895.)
In an action for injuries received by falling through an opening by the side of the gangplank connecting defendant’s ferryboat with the landing, plaintiff testified that she followed the crowd with her eyes fixed upon her husband, who preceded her; that she did not look down at the ' flooring of the boat, and that it was too dark for her to see had she looked. Her husband saw the opening and avoided it. Held, that her evidence not only failed to establish the absence of contributory negligence on her part, but substantially proved its presence.
CrEEQEKIOH, J., dissents.
' Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the General Term of the City Court of FTew York, affirming a judgment entered' upon the verdict of a jury in two actions that were consolidated and tried together.
■ One action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries to the plaintiff, alleged to have been received by falling from the ferryboat Kingston into the Hudson river at the Franklin street landing of the West Shore railroad in Flew York city on the evening of the 21st day of July, 1893. The other was brought to recover damages for the loss of property consisting of personal effects, such as jewels, books and documents carried by the plaintiff in a handbag, including the handbag and an umbrella, at the time of the said fall.
Herbert K. Kimiey, for appellant.
Peter Mitchell (Oarrrvpora, c& Peville, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Bookstaver, J.
Plaintiff, a passenger upon defendant's ferryboat, sustained injuries to her person and to property contained in a handbag when in the act' of passing from such boat to its landing ¡dace, by reason of the presence of an interval of space by the side of the gangplank connecting the boat with the landing, through which hole she fell.
The recovery by the plaintiff in the court below is assailed upon this appeal, and, in our view, justly.
The evidence given in support of the cause of action shows that plaintiff's husband preceded her in leaving the boat and proceeding over the gangplank, they forming a part of a crowd so proceeding.
According to the testimony of plaintiff's husband, he saw the hole in question, avoided it and turned to call plaintiff's attention to it, but was unable to reach her before the accident occurred. Plaintiff testified that she followed the crowd with her eyes upon her husband; that she did not look down at the flooring of the boat, and that it was too dark for her to see, had she so looked.
Upon this state of facts we think that the plaintiff not only failed to establish the absence of contributory negligence on her part, but, by the testimony adduced in her behalf, substantially proved its presence; thus, error is presented by the exception taken to the denial of defendant's motion for a dismissal of the complaint made at the close of the case upon that ground.
Had she actually followed her husband and the crowd, she would not have suffered the injury which they escaped; had she taken the reasonable precaution of observing the flooring upon which she was proceeding, as did her husband, she, as well as he, must have seen the hole which the light in the locality sufficed to disclose to his view.
We may concede the defendant's negligence, but, as shown, the plaintiff's case presented nothing which could call for a favorable finding by a jury.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
Bischoff, J., concurs.