Case Name: Charles Paulson, Resp't, v. Brooklyn City Railroad Company, App'lt
Court: Brooklyn City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-06-24
Citations: 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 123
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles Paulson, Resp’t, v. Brooklyn City Railroad Company, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 68
Pages: 123–124

Head Matter:
Charles Paulson, Resp’t, v. Brooklyn City Railroad Company, App’lt.
(Brooklyn City Court, General Term,
Filed June 24, 1895.)
^Negligence — Contributory.
A party, in attempting to board the front step of a moving trolley car, is bound to exercise the care of a reasonably prudent person, and more care is necessary than if he had waited to board the rear step, or for the car to stop.
Appeal from a judgment, entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Morris & Whitehouse, for app’lt; Foley & Powell, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Clement, C. J.
— The plaintiff, on the ' morning of March 24, 1893, attempted to get upon the front step of a closed trolley car operated by defendant. He had in his left hand a sash cord from thirty to fifty feet long, made into a bundle of about one foot in length, and about an inch and a half to two inches in thickness. A hammer was stuck through the sash cord. Plaintiff testified that he signaled to the motorman to stop the car; that the motorman began to work his brake, slowed down his car, and that he (plaintiff) grabbed the front rail of the front platform with his right hand, and got both feet upon the step. At folios 28 and 29 he said:
"I grabbed the front rail with my right hand, and I don't remember if I had hold with the left hand or not. Well, then the car made a jolt. I had both feet on the step, — stood like this,— and the car struck me here, and the car made a jerk. The car started ahead quick. Q. Did that happen as soon as you put your foot on the platform ? A. Soon; all in a moment; the car started quick. Then I don't remember any more, only that I remember that I hung onto the car with my right hand."
The plaintiff had no witness to corroborate his testimony. Eight witnesses for the company testified that the car was moving at the ordinary speed when plaintiff attempted to get on. Several disinterested witnesses testified that the plaintiff missed the hand rail with his left hand, and was dragged by the car for that reason, while he was holding on with his right hand. We think that the plaintiff failed to make out a case against the company. He attempted to board the front step of a moving trolley car. In so-doing, he was bound to exercise the care of a reasonably prudent person, and more care was necessary than if he had waited to-board the rear step, or for the car to stop. He was injured because he failed to take hold of the hand rail on the body of the car with his left hand. Plaintiff testified :
" I grabbed the car with my right hand first, and then I knowed that I had in my mind to strike the other rail with the left hand. I got hold of the hand rail at the dashboard with my right hand, and I got a good hold of that, and I attempted to get hold of the hand rail next the body'of the car with my left hand; and, at. that time, on my left wrist was hanging this roll of rope and this hammer; and whether I caught hold of that, or missed that hand rail, I don't know."
'The testimony of the plaintiff that there was a "jerk " or sudden movement of the car when he jumped on the step does not necessarily show that there was negligence on the part of the motorman. When a person steps on a moving car there is always a jei'k or sudden movement. According to the testimony of the witnesses for the defendant, the instant the plaintiff mounted the step of the car the motorman turned on his brake, which would necessarily produce a sudden jerk of the car. The plaintiff did not contradict such testimony, and inferred, without knowledge of the fact, that the car was suddenly started, because lie felt a jerk as soon as he got upon the step. The plaintiff did not use his left hand in attempting to get on, or, if he did make the attempt, could not use his hand by reason of the sash cord and hammer which he carried. The testimony of the plaintiff as to the speed of the car is conflicting and confused.
Judgment and order denying new trial reversed, and new trial-granted ; costs to abide the event.