
    Effie Redner, Resp’t, v. The Lehigh & Hudson Railway Co., App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed December 1, 1893.)
    
    Negligence—Duty op railroad compart.
    It is the duty of the company to provide a safe place, at which passengers can embark upon and depart from its trains at such points as it receives or discharges passengers.
    Appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
    
      John J. Beattie, for app’lt; John M. Gardner, for resp’t.
   Barnard, P. J.

The plaintiff was at the Hudson junction station waiting for a train of the defendant by which to be carried as a passenger to Warwick in Orange county. The station was a small one, but it was one for which the defendant sometimes sold tickets and at which if permitted passengers to get upon the train. The train was reached by a passenger who waited for the train at the room provided for them by a very narrow passage ,way of boards being only some three or four inches in width to the platform, alongside of which the defendant’s cars stood. The station was common to other roads besides the defendant’s road and while the plaintiff was proceeding to the defendant’s train some person, other than employes of defendant, suddenly turned and threw the plaintiff off the narrow step of board and severely injured her. The effect was not designed by the person who threw the plaintiff down, but the passageway was so narrow that the mere unintentional turning of a person was likely to have that effect, and it did so in this case. The obligation of the defendant was to provide a safe .place at which the passenger could embark upon and depart from the train at such points as the company received or discharged passengers. Hulbert v. N. Y. C. R. R., 40 N. Y., 145.

The questions of fact which were disputed have been found in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was entirely free from any lack of care and caution on her part which, as matter of law, could be deemed contributory negligence on her part. She was proceeding in the way the defendant provided, and no reasonable anticipation could be made by her that a person in front of her going the same way would suddenly and without warning turn and throw her from this narrow passage.

The judgment and order denying new trial should therefore be affirmed, with costs.  