
    Sarah Emily Smith, as Administratrix, etc., App'lt, v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Resp't.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Dept.,
    Filed June 29, 1896.)
    1. Trial—Dismissal of complaint.
    The plaintiff, in considering whether the complaint should have been dismissed without a submission of the case to the jury, is entitled to have the benefit of the facts most favorable to him, which the jury would have been justified in finding upon the evidence.
    2. Negligence—Ordinary Care.
    If, by the exercise of ordinary care, a gripman can avoid an accident, it is his legal duty to exercise such care and the failure to exercise it is negligence.
    3. Same—Contradictory.
    A traveler has a right to rely upon the exercise by the gripman of ordinary care to avoid a collision.
    4. Same.
    The strict rule applicable to steam railroads and travelers in the highway are not applicable to street railways and wag'ons. traveling along- the streets of a city.
    6. Same.
    In the latter case, care is required to be exercised on both side» to avoid collisions, and whether it is negligent on the part of drivers of teams to attempt to cross a street railway track when a car is approaching, is dependent upon the circumstances of each particular case, and is a question of fact to be determined by the» jury and not by the court.
    Appeal from a, judgment entered on a decision of the court, dismissing the complaint on the merits on a trial before a jury.
    The action* was brought to recover damages resulting- from the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. At the time of the accident resulting in the death the defendant was operating-a street railway by cable along and through Broadway, in New York City, and the deceased was engaged in driving a United States mail wagon. The accident occurred at the junction of Broadway and Bleecker street, about 9:50 o’clock of the night of December 30, 1894, and the death resulted January 2, 1895. The evidence given in the case tended to show the following facts relating to the negligence of the defendant and the absence of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased: The night was clear, and there was an electric street light at the junction of the two streets, so that the gripman and the deceased could see as well as though it had been daylight. The route deceased was driving before the accident took liim through Houston street to Broadway, up Broadway to Bleecker street, and through Bleecker street to station 0, at Hudson and Bank streets. At the corner of Broadway and Houston street he met a cable car in charge of gripman Ryan, the car going up street on the easterly track. The two men spoke to each other. Deceased drove along up Broadway ahead of the car, and on the easterly side of the street and tracks, at an ordinary jog trot. The car went along at a creepy speed, on account of the gipsy or automatic grips, which were then in front of the cable building The oar stopped in the middle of the block at the flag station, and deceased was then within forty or fifty feet of Bleecker street, and then turned westerly to cross the tracks into Bleecker street, on the westerly side of Broadway. When he reached the west track, another cable car, going down Broadway on the westerly track, was 100 feet above Bleecker street, going at a speed of seven to nine miles an hour. The gripman on this car did not attempt to apply his brake until the car was at the Bleecker street crossing, within ten or fifteen feet of deceased’s wagon, which was then on the westerly track. Deceased’s wagon kept on at the same jog trot, and almost got across into Bleecker street, when the car struck the rim of the hind wheel of the wagon, and deceased was thrown from the wagon to the ground and received the injuries which caused his death. Under the conditions which existed at the time, the car could have been stopped within sixteen feet when going at full speed, and when going slowly could have been stopped within three or four feet, or less. There was evidence given by the defendant tending to show a somewhat different state of facts. The evidence was conflicting. Upon the facts stated the court dismissed the complaint, holding as a matter of law that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence.
    Frank E. Blackwell, for app’lt; Henry A. Robinson and John T. Little, Jr., for resp’t.
   WILLIAMS, J.

The learned court was not justified in dismissing the complaint either upon the ground of a failure of proof of negligence on the part of the defendant or on the ground of failure of proof of absence of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. In considering whether the complaint should have been dismissed without a submission of the case to the jury the plaintiff is entitled to have the benefit of the facts most favorable to her, which the jury .would have been justified in finding upon the evidence. The jury, and not the court, were to determine what the real facts were from the conflicting evidence. The evidence given by the plaintiff presented a question for the jury as to both of these questions. Whether her witnesses or those sworn in behalf of the defendant told the truth was a question for the jury. In this case it would be usurping the functions of a jury for the trial court or for this court to determine as to the credibility of the witnesses. Upon the evidence presented by the plaintiff it was for the jury to say whether the gripman was guilty of negligence. The deceased had started to cross the tracks while the car was such a distance away that he could have stopped the car, and yet the gripman made no effort to slow down the car, so as to have it under control, but permitted it to ran at a high rate of speed until it was so close to deceased’s wagon that he was apparently unable to avoid a collision. There was evidence tending to show that he made no effort to set the brake until he was quite close to the wagon. The street was clear, and deceased’s wagon was in plain view, and had commenced to cross the track, and there was evidence tending to show that it would have been very easy for the gripman to slow down his car, and get it under control, and so avoid a collision. Allowing it to- ran at full speed and unchecked, as he did, the wagon still had nearly cleared the track, and only the rim of the hind wheel was struck. It was a question for the jury whether, by the exercise of ordinary care, he could have avoided the accident, and, if so, it was his legal duty "to exercise this care, and the failure to exercise such care would be negligence. These same suggestions are applicable to the question of the absence of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.' He started to cross the tracks while the car was a long distance away. He had a right to rely upon the exercise by the gripman of ordinary care to avoid a collision.

The strict rules applicable to steam railroads and travelers in the highway are not aioplieable to street railways and wagons traveling along the streets of a city. As to the former the rule is that the railroad trains have the right of way, and when travelers ’in the highway know that trains are approaching it is the absolute duty of the travelers in the highway to keep off the track until the trains have passed by. Ho such rule is applicable to street railways and teams traveling in the streets of a city. The teams have a right .to cross the railway tracks, although cars are known to be approaching; otherwise teams would rarely be able to cross the tracks of street- raiLvays, -Especially would this be true in Broadway, whce care are at all times in view, and known to be approaching the point where teams are to cross. Care in these cases is required to'be exercised on both sides to avoid collisions between cars and teams, and whether it is negligent on the part of drivers of teams to attempt to cross a street-railway track when a car is approaching is dependent upon the circumstances of each particular case. In Wendell v. Railroad Co., 91 N. Y. 429, it was said by Ruger, C. J.:

“The rules of conduct which should govern the approach of travelers to crossings over street railways or in the track of vehicles whose rate of progress is under control of their drivers are necessarily quite different from those applicable to the cossing of the track of steam railroads, whose trains traverse vast distances, carrying great burdens, and moving with a momentum necessarily destructive to bodies with which they come in contact. It is within the knowledge and comprehension of the most immature that these agencies cannot be arrested in time to obviate danger to those coming in their way, and therefore a greater degree of care is imposed on those who have occasion to use their tracks. Barker v. Savage, 45 N. Y. 191.”

And in Moebus v. Herrmann, 108 N. Y. 354; 13 St. Rep. 648, Judge Danforth said:

“The duty imposed upon a wayfarer at the crossing of a street by the track of a railroad to look both ways does not, as a matter oi law, attach to such nersons when about to cross- from one side to the other of a city street. The degree of caution he must exercise will be affected by the situation and surrounding circumstances. In the former case there is obvious and constantly impending danger not easily or likely to be under .the control of engineers. In the latter case the vehicles are Managed without difficulty, and injuries" are infrequent.”

Under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence of the plaintiff in this case, it could not be said as matter of law that the deceased was guilty of negligence in attempting to cross these tracks as he did. It was a question of fact to be determined by the jury, and could not be determined by the court. Whether it was prudent or imprudent for the deceased to cross the track under tho circumstances was a question of fact to be determined by the jury. Belton v. Baxter, 58 N. Y. 411. The facts in this case are entirely unlike those in the case of Doller v. Railway Co. (decided by us at the present term), 39 Supp. 770. In that case the deceased was on foot, and was struck by the car just as he stepped over the first rail upon the track. The car was quite close to him when he stepped upon the track, and was running rapidly. He should have kept off the track until the car passed by. There was no opportunity, after the deceased stepped upon the track, for the gripman to slow down his car, and avoid the accident. In this case the whole team had entirely crossed the track, except the outer rim of the hind wheel, when the accident occurred. The car must have been some distance away when the team started to cross over*, and there was full opportunity for the grip-man to slow down his car, and avoid the collision. We think the learned trial court erred in taking the case from the jury and dismissing the complaint.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

All concur.  