Case Name: William Kramer, Appellant, v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-07-24
Citations: 114 A.D. 804
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Kramer, Appellant, v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 804–807

Head Matter:
William Kramer, Appellant, v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Respondent.
Second Department,
July 24, 1906.
Negligence — injury to person standing on running board of car.
A person standing on the running board of a surface car who is struck by a plank which projects about four inches over the running board from a temporary fence built around an excavation in the street must show, as a prerequisite to a recovery, that he was invited to ride as a passenger in that position.
Gaynob and Hooker, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiff, William Kramer, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Brooklyn, in favor of the defendant, rendered on the 6th day of April, 1905.
Charles M. Stafford, for the appellant.
H. F. Ives, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Jenks, J.:
The plaintiff complains that when standing on the running board of an open electric car moved by the defendant, he was swept off by a plank which projected 4 inches over the running board from a fence around a work in the street. He did not prove that the car was stopped by the conductor for him to get on it or that after he had boarded the car, when there was only room for him on the running board and he stood on the running board, he was seen by the •conductor and suffered to remain there, or that his fare was demanded or accepted from him while in that position. It is obvious that if he had not been on the running board he would have suffered no injury. Before he could hold the defendant as a common carrier he was bound to show that he was invited to ride as a passenger on the running board of the car. Non constat but that the defendant would have refused to transport him while in that place and so to extend to- him the assurance that it was " a suitable and safe place " for him as a passenger. I think, therefore, that the plaintiff failed to make out a case. (Clark, v. Eighth Avenue R. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 135.) If the plaintiff had established his status as a passenger on the running board, I am not prepared to say that he did not upon his part make out a case for'the jury.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Hirschberg, P. J., and Woodward, J., concurred; Gaynor, J., read for reversal, with whom Hooker, J., concurred.