Case Name: Elizabeth Day, Appellant, v. Brooklyn City Railroad Company and Sheffield Farms Company, Inc., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1921-12-16
Citations: 199 A.D. 179
Docket Number: 
Parties: Elizabeth Day, Appellant, v. Brooklyn City Railroad Company and Sheffield Farms Company, Inc., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 199
Pages: 179–186

Head Matter:
Elizabeth Day, Appellant, v. Brooklyn City Railroad Company and Sheffield Farms Company, Inc., Respondents.
Second Department,
December 16, 1921.
Street railways — action by passenger against street railway and owner of truck for injuries received when two vehicles proceeding in opposite directions collided in passing — verdict in favor of defendants not against evidence — instruction that want of care must be shown against one or both defendants proper.
In an action by a passenger of a street railroad against the railroad and the owner of a truck to recover for personal injuries, it appeared that at the time of the accident a recent heavy snow had left a roadway narrowed to the space opened by the snow plows, leaving a compacted surface between the rails; that the truck was going west on the west-bound trolley track and that the rear end of the truck as it passed the car going in the opposite direction came against the car with a glancing contact that broke the windows and threw plaintiff from her seat.
Held, on all the evidence, that the verdict in favor of both defendants was not against the weight of the evidence.
There was no error in the instruction by the court that in order for the plaintiff to recover, want of care must be proven as against one or both defendants.
Kelly, J., dissents, with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Elizabeth Day, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant Brooklyn City Railroad Company, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 26th day of February, 1921, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order, entered in said clerk’s office oh the 1st day of March, 1921, denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Elizabeth Day, from a judgment of the Supreme Court m favor of the defendant Sheffield Farms Company, Inc., entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 31st day of March, 1921, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order, entered in said clerk’s office on the 1st day of March, 1921, denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial made upon the minutes.
On February 9,1920, plaintiff was a passenger on a Brooklyn City railroad trolley car west-bound along Fulton street. Near Arlington place this street car met a large four-horse milk truck of the other defendant, which was traveling east. A recent heavy snowfall had left a roadway narrowed to the ■ space opened by the snow plows, leaving a compacted surface between the rails. The motorman testified that his speed was five miles an hour; however, the driver of the milk truck estimated the car’s speed as eight or ten miles an hour. Neither vehicle stopped. The milk truck’s left wheels were about half a foot beyond the left rail, owing to the greater width of the truck. The front of the truck passed the trolley car by a good clearance (estimated at between two and three feet), but in some way the rear of the truck came against the street car’s side with a glancing, scraping contact that broke two window panes and threw plaintiff from her seat and spilled milk over another passenger. After a trial with a charge to which no' exception was taken, the jury gave a verdict for defendants.
Matthew W. Wood, for the appellant.
Andrew F. Van Thun, Jr. [George D. Yeomans with him on the brief], for the respondent Brooklyn City Railroad Company.
George W. Alger, for the respondent Sheffield Farms Company, Inc.

Opinion:
Putnam, J.:
Here was an issue of fact, as to the accident, coupled with a wide variance between medical men as to plaintiff's alleged injuries. The driver of the milk truck stated that the car went by a " stop '.' sign. But the jury could well accept testimony from the railroad that there was no " stop " sign at Arlington place, hence that the truck driver's recollection had confused this place (where there is no cross street) with Nostrand avenue. The jury were not required to accept the estimate of the truck driver that the car went eight to ten miles an hour. Apparently they chose to take the motorman's own testimony of five miles an hour, rather than an estimate from one on a vehicle passing in an opposite direction.
After the front of the truck passed the car front, with sufficient clearance, the later side contact raised a question for the jury. Was this slue on the ice by want of reasonable care? Should the truck driver have come to a stop until the car passed?
When plaintiff rested, the railroad company went forward with its proofs, which made out a good explanation as against its passenger. (Freeland v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Co., 109 App. Div. 651.) The evidencé from plaintiff (even without that from the defense) shows a state of facts — makes an explanation — and that explanation did not establish negligence on the part of the carrier. In a similar appeal this court declared: " To hold that a clearance of not less than eighteen inches was not sufficient for the passage of a trolley car in the streets of the great city of New York and its principal boroughs, would be to practically stop all traffic, and the law is not thus impracticable." (Rosenblum v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Co., 153 App. Div. 304, 306.) Where such issues went to the jury without a single exception, we must be shown strong reasons to reject their verdict. I do not find any in the instruction (which seems to me vitally essential) that in order for plaintiff to recover, want of care must be proved as against one or both defendants.
Hence I advise that the judgments and order be affirmed, with costs.
Blackmar, P. J., Mills and Rich, JJ., concur; Kelly, J., reads for reversal.