From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morris v. the New York Central and Hudson River Rd. Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 4, 1887
106 N.Y. 678 (N.Y. 1887)

Summary

In Morris v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company (106 N.Y. 678) a passenger was injured by the falling upon him of a clothes-wringer placed in a rack over his seat by another passenger; and the court held the measure of care required of a carrier of passengers in such a case was not the highest care which human vigilance could give, but that the company was only to be held to reasonable care, to be measured by the circumstances surrounding the case.

Summary of this case from Kelly v. Manhattan R. Co.

Opinion

Argued June 27, 1887

Decided October 4, 1887

Matthew Hale for appellant.

Andrew Hamilton for respondent.



PECKHAM, J., reads for reversal and new trial.

All concur, except DANFORTH, J., dissenting.

Judgment reversed.


Summaries of

Morris v. the New York Central and Hudson River Rd. Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 4, 1887
106 N.Y. 678 (N.Y. 1887)

In Morris v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company (106 N.Y. 678) a passenger was injured by the falling upon him of a clothes-wringer placed in a rack over his seat by another passenger; and the court held the measure of care required of a carrier of passengers in such a case was not the highest care which human vigilance could give, but that the company was only to be held to reasonable care, to be measured by the circumstances surrounding the case.

Summary of this case from Kelly v. Manhattan R. Co.
Case details for

Morris v. the New York Central and Hudson River Rd. Co.

Case Details

Full title:JACOB MORRIS, Respondent, v . THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 4, 1887

Citations

106 N.Y. 678 (N.Y. 1887)
13 N.E. 455

Citing Cases

Welch v. Thompson

(3) Accidents arising from abnormal conditions "in the department of actual transportation" comprehend…

Prunty v. Allred

It was there held that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a recovery. To the same effect is Morris v.…