From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Antonio v. Long Island Railroad Company, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 15, 1943
49 N.E.2d 1002 (N.Y. 1943)

Opinion

Argued March 9, 1943

Decided April 15, 1943

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, RUBENSTEIN, J.

Ralph E. Hemstreet and Louis J. Carruthers for appellant.

Adolph Feldblum, Samuel J. Sussman and Herman E. Hoberman for respondent.



Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: LEHMAN, Ch. J., LOUGHRAN, FINCH, RIPPEY, CONWAY and DESMOND, JJ. LEWIS, J., dissents in the following opinion.


The respondent has recovered damages for injuries sustained when he was struck by a train on the appellant's right-of-way at a point of danger removed from any thoroughfare. The record, as I view it, discloses no evidence from which the jury could find that at the time and place of his injuries the respondent was either a licensee or a business invitee of the appellant. On the contrary, the respondent was in a legal sense a stranger to the appellant. Being then and there engaged in his own pursuits, he was a trespasser at common law and by statute (Railroad Law, § 83; Penal Law, § 1990). In those circumstances the appellant owed no duty to the respondent except to refrain from inflicting intentional or wanton injury. ( Keller v. Erie R.R. Co., 183 N.Y. 67, 71, 72; Gleason v. Central New England Ry. Co., 261 N.Y. 333, 335-337.) Accordingly, I dissent.


Summaries of

Antonio v. Long Island Railroad Company, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 15, 1943
49 N.E.2d 1002 (N.Y. 1943)
Case details for

Antonio v. Long Island Railroad Company, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JOAQUIM ANTONIO, Respondent, v. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY, INC.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 15, 1943

Citations

49 N.E.2d 1002 (N.Y. 1943)
49 N.E.2d 1002

Citing Cases

Stanton v. Tami Ami Realty Co.

Exclusion of that testimony constituted error, requiring a new trial, for, if evidence had been adduced…

LaCroix v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co.

The Michigan statute does not declare such a standard of conduct, but, rather, declares a status. See Antonio…