
    Jean Hirsch, Resp’t, v. The New York and Greenwood Lake Railroad Company, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed June 28, 1889.)
    
    Negligence—Railroads—Station,
    The plaintiff, while undertaking to cross a track between the station house and the train he desired to enter, was struck and injured by defendant’s train which came along on such intervening track. Held, that the defendant was guilty of gross negligence; that whether plaintiff was chargeable with contributory negligence in attempting to cross without looking, was for the jury.
    Appeal from judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury and order denying a motion for a new trial.
    
      Tracy, MacFarland, Boardman & Platt, for app’lt; J. Edward Swanstrom, for resp’t.
   Dykman, J.

The similitude between this case and the case of Terry v. Jewett (18 N. Y., 338) justifies the quotatian of that case as an authority against the defendant on this appeal.

In both cases the injured person undertook to cross a track between the station house and the train he desired to enter, and in both cases the injury resulted from the propulsion of a train between the passenger train and the station upon the intervening track, occupying the space over which the passenger was required to pass. In the case cited, the court held the act of the engineer to be grossly negligent, and that it was not negligent as a matter of law for the injured person to attempt to cross the track without looking, but that the question of contributory negligence was one of fact for the jury.

Here the engineer of the incoming train which injured the plaintiff, ran his engine between the passenger train and the waiting room at a time when passengers might desire to pass from the platform to the train, and when they had a right to believe they might do so with safety, and under the doctrine inculcated by the Terry Case, that was an act of gross negligence.

We think the case was properly submitted to the jury, and that the appeal is without merit.

The judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur. _  