Case Name: RICE v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-06-22
Citations: 94 N.Y.S. 326
Docket Number: 
Parties: RICE v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 94
Pages: 326–327

Head Matter:
RICE v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 22, 1905.)
Carriers—Negligence—Injuries—Burden of Proof—Instruction.
Where, in an action for injuries to a passenger, the court instructed that the burden of showing that the accident did not happen through defendant’s negligence was on defendant, the error was cured by a subsequent instruction that, while defendant was called upon to explain the accident on the whole case, the burden was on plaintiff to show that it occurred through defendant’s negligence.
MacLean, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District.
Action by Hyland P. Rice against the New York City Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and MacLBAN and DUGRO, JJ.
William E. Weaver, for appellant.
Wales F. Severance, for respondent.

Opinion:
SCOTT, P. J.
If the case had gone to the jury solely upon the collqquial charge to the effect that "the burden of showing that the accident did not happen through the defendant's negligence is upon the defendant," it would be open to defendant to claim that the jury were wrongly instructed. Maher v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 102 App. Div. 517, 92 N. Y. Supp. 825. The court, however, afterwards charged, at plaintiff's request, that "while the law calls upon the defendant, under such a condition as the plaintiff claims existed here, to explain, yet on the whole case the burden is upon the plaintiff in the end to convince the jury that the accident occurred through the negligence of the defendant." This was a perfectly cqrrect statement of the law (Maher v. Met. St. Ry. Co., supra), and cured any error in the colloquial charge. The defendant did not clear itself of negligence, the evidence justified the verdict, and its amount was moderate.
* The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
DUGRO, J., concurs.