hynes v new york central railroad case brief

You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court. Patterson’s characterization of Cardozo’s argument as “ingenious casuistry” implies he does not fully support Cardozo’s decision. 57. Two boys walking in the country or swimming in a river stop to rest for a moment along the side of the road or the margin of the stream. Fews v. Hynes et al Plaintiff: Hafani Fews: Defendant: D.A. Thomas died intestate. He was hired on February 16, 1958 at 1 p.m. during the course of a severe snowstorm. Unknown, Author: They have thought it of no significance that Hynes would have met the same fate if he had been below the board and not above it. At that moment a crossarm with electric wires fell from the defendant's pole. We may be permitted to distrust the logic that leads to such conclusions. At that moment a crossarm with electric wires fell from the defendant's pole. Projecting from the defendant's bulkhead above the waters of the river was a plank or springboard from which boys of the neighborhood used to dive. R. v. Hynes - SCC Cases (Lexum) Skip to main content We assume, without deciding, that the springboard was a fixture, a permanent improvement of the defendant's right of way. There are times when there is little trouble in marking off the field of exemption and immunity from that of liability and duty. The wires struck the diver, flung him from the shattered board, and plunged him to his death below. Hynes would have gone to his death if he had been below the springboard or beside it (Laidlaw *Page 235 In real life, the young people of Harlem had been using the plank as a diving board, for their own entertainment, for at least five years. The plaintiff, Thomas Hayes, was given temporary employment by the New York Central Railroad for the purpose of clearing snow from switches in the Weehawken, New Jersey railroad yards. Decided February 23, 1909. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. He is liable for damages for the proximate Section 124 of the traffic regulations of NYC says that no one can operate an advertising vehicle that advertises a business other than its own. Full case name: Penn Central Transportation Company, et al. We do not press the inquiry, for we are persuaded that the rights of bathers do not depend upon these nice distinctions. In my opinion, if they could access it directly from the riverbank, Hynes has a stronger case. (iii)             The realist’s view is to be preferred. rely on donations for our financial security. Argued December 14, 15, 16, 1908. Ryan v. New York Central R.R Case Brief - Rule of Law: Every person is liable for the consequences of his own acts. In Re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation. The conclusion is defended with much subtlety of reasoning, with much insistence upon its inevitableness as a merely logical deduction. Citations: 438 U.S. 104 . A plane of private right had been interposed between the river and the air, but public ownership was unchanged in the space below it and above. Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975), was a statutory interpretation case in the Supreme Court of the United States. His mother, suing as … For more than five years swimmers had used it as a diving board without protest or obstruction. Title to the fixture, unlike title to the land, does not carry with it rights of ownership usque ad coelum. (i)                 The plank, though it is technically a fixture, is so close to the river that the two are inextricable, and to consider the plank strictly private property would be splitting hairs. There is no such causal connection here between his position and his injuries. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. Get Silver v. New York Central Railroad, 105 N.E.2d 923 (1952), Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Much might be said in favor of another view. It was a mere by-play, an incident, subordinate and ancillary to the execution of his primary purpose, the enjoyment of the highway. Measured from this point of contact the length behind was five feet; the length in front eleven. Evidence • Add Comment. Argument by convenience (practical reasoning) (A->B, A, therefore B). encroaching objects or engaging in the sports that are common among swimmers. So its effectiveness depends upon its appeal to the rationality and emotions of its readers. Change ), James Smyth's Translations and Compositions. 98 S. Ct. 2646; 57 L. Ed. Get compensated for submitting them here Adult Search Their daughter, Olivia, was born a few months later on March 28, 2002. Duties are thus supposed to arise and to be extinguished in alternate zones or strata. I believe that strictly drawn principles are still possible, however; there may simply be cases where property ownership is not resolved until it enters a legal dispute. (The boy was also occupying the publicly-owned air above the plank, Cardozo notes.) Adams v. The New York Central Railroad Co Case Brief - Rule of Law: The document at issue here was not admissible under the past recollection recorded exception Conclusion: “We think that considerations of analogy, of convenience, of policy, and of justice, exclude him from the field of the defendant’s immunity and exemption, and place him in the field of liability and duty.”, Argument by analogy (FGH): two boys walking in the country (A, B, A->C, A=B…B->C). In one sense, and that a highly technical and artificial one, the diver at the end of the springboard is an intruder on the adjoining lands. Such acts were not equivalent to an abandonment of the highway, a departure from its proper uses, a withdrawal from the waters, and an entry upon land. A+ Member … Continue reading "Evidence" Hynes followed to the front of the springboard, and stood poised for his dive. Rather, he claims that applying previous trespassing laws and decisions would be too simplistic because the board intrudes into public property and is so accessible from it. Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York SCOTUS - 1949 Facts. 166 (1918) NATURE OF THE CASE: Railroad (D) appealed a judgment for Brauer (P) in their negligence action. seen in many cases, not just in one or two. A majority of the court are unable to accept it as the conclusion of the law. They have been framed alio intuitu. We are to ignore the public ownership of the circumambient spaces of water and of air. New York Central R.R. 1985, ch. Summary of Silver v. New York Central Railroad, 329 Mass. FACTS: An accident occurred in which P's horse was killed, and his wagon and harness, and the cider and barrels with which the … The accident killed Plaintiff’s horse, destroyed his wagon, and spilled the goods. Company activities outside of the scope of its objects... Cases on Mens Rea 2 3rd Nov 2020 Introduction: Cases on Mens Rea 2. (ii)               The pertinent trespassing laws were framed alio intuitu, or with substantively different cases in mind. His mother, suing as administratrix, brings this action for her damages. Here structures and ways are so united and commingled, superimposed upon each other, that the *Page 236 Has technological progress affected this case? Change ), You are commenting using your Facebook account. (railroad) (defendant) negligently set fire to one of its woodsheds. The justice classifies the plank as an intersection of private and public property but decides it is ultimately more practical to consider the scene of the crime as public property. Get free access to the complete judgment in HYNES v. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, INC on CaseMine. The wires were not stayed by the presence of the plank. 120, pars. (iii)             The court should not consider the plank strictly private property. Both are killed by falling wires. Before: NEWMAN, Chief Judge, FEINBERG and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges. View Hynes.pdf from AA 1231 N.Y. 229, 131 N.E. Evidence Evidence can be a difficult subject for a lot of people because it is very theoretical and requires a lot of thinking. D operates a delivery business and uses over 1900 trucks in … I suspect this may be true of Justice Cardozo, who in both MacPherson and Hynes made landmark liability decisions in favor of an individual over a corporation. You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site. New York Court of Appeals 35 N.Y. 210 (1866) Facts. 166 (1918) CASE BRIEF BRAUER V. NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD. The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. v. Sage, 158 N.Y. 73, 97). The temperatures that day were low and the winds gusty. No. The Defendant corporation, New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. (Defendant), together with a managing agent within the corporation, were convicted of violating a federal law prohibiting the … Synopsis of Rule of Law. Its height measured from the stream was three feet at the bulkhead, and five feet at its outermost extremity. We Liability would not be doubtful, we are told, had the boy been diving from a pole, if the pole had been vertical. 898, 17 A.L.R. Abridging the Bible for a literature-minded friend. Ryan (plaintiff) owned a house nearby. Filed: Claimant Edlyn Hynes filed the instant Claim seeking damages individually and as executrix of the estate of John G. Hynes for the wrongful death of her husband who was killed by an avalanche as he tried to free his car from a snow drift on Route 218 in Cornwall, New York on March 13, 1993 during a blizzard. I imagine accidents have happened on property borders before. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free We think that considerations of analogy, of convenience, of policy, and of justice, exclude him from the field of the defendant's immunity and exemption, and place him in the field of liability and duty (Beck v. Carter, 68 N.Y. 283; Jewhurst v. City ofSyracuse, 108 N.Y. 303; McCloskey v. Buckley, 223 N.Y. 187,192). At that moment a crossarm with electric wires fell from the defendant's pole. They followed the boy in his fall, and overwhelmed him in the waters. The plaintiff’s husband, Thomas Hynes, was killed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. The defendant assumes that the identification of ownership of a fixture with ownership of land is complete in every incident. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. The railroad property section of the Revenue Act of 1939 (Ill. Rev. May 31st, 1921, Precedential Status: (ii)               The plank belongs to the private sphere in a technical and artificial sense, to the public sphere in a realistic one. Arthur L. Salmon, Killarney & Salmon, New York City, submitted a brief for third-party-defendant-appellee Yonkers Contracting Corp. Thomas Donald Hughes, Hayes & Ryan, New York City, submitted a brief for second third-party-defendant-appellee Progressive Painting Corporation. Home » Case Briefs Bank » Evidence » Silver v. New York Central Railroad Case Brief. The wires struck the diver, flung him from the shattered board, and plunged him to his death below. HYNES v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILWAY. 898, 231 N.Y. 229, Docket Number: Railroad Company v. United States. The truth is that every act of Hynes from his first plunge into the river until the moment of his death, was in the enjoyment of the public waters, and under cover of the protection which his presence in those waters gave him. The approximate and relative become the definite and absolute. There will hardly be denial that a cause of action would have arisen if the wires had fallen on an aeroplane proceeding above the river, though the location of the impact could be identified as the space above the springboard. But there are important elements of difference. The Most Outrageous Consequences illustrates reasonable people could disagree with MacPherson, for instance. [Vol. Finally, a couple of the Speluncean Explorers judges would argue that the realist’s view is not preferable because strict, technical interpretation is what makes the law fair. By force of such annexation, it was to be reckoned as a fixture, and thus constructively, if not actually, an extension of the land. J., CHASE and McLAUGHLIN, JJ., dissent. That would be the situation, for example, if the weight of the boy upon the board had caused it to break and thereby throw him into the river. 103 A. One of them made the plunge in safety. Landowners are not bound to regulate their conduct in contemplation of the presence of trespassers intruding upon private structures. The plank is more obviously railroad property if the boys had to trespass to get there. In MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., Cardozo said the law must adapt to changing times. They must be reformulated and readapted to meet exceptional conditions. The major classification dispute in this case is whether the plank is private or public property. (ii)               Previous courts have ruled that the railroad company is not liable for the boy because he was standing on the plank. 131 N.E. The Harlem River plank is one such example. But to bathers diving from the springboard, there was no duty, we are told, unless the *Page 233 Stat. On this day Hynes and his companions climbed on top of the bulkhead intending to leap into the water. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Defendant’s train hit Plaintiff’s wagon. Precedential, Citations: a rock on the defendant's land, and nails had been driven at its point of contact with the bulkhead. (v)               Therefore, unless there are countervailing considerations (and there are not), the previous courts’ decisions that the diving boy is at fault are also absurd. This case is a striking instance of the dangers of "a jurisprudence of conceptions" (Pound, Mechanical Jurisprudence, 8 Columbia Law Review, 605, 608, 610), the extension of a maxim or a definition with relentless disregard of consequences to a "a dryly logical extreme." Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. In climbing on the board, they became trespassers and outlaws. Brower (Plaintiff) was riding in a wagon loaded with goods. Case opinion for CT Court of Appeals HYNES v. JONES. Co.’s (Defendant) negligence, a fire started in a populated area and spread to the Plaintiff, Ryan’s (Plaintiff) home, destroying it and several other properties. Syllabus. The by-play, the incident, was not the cause of the disaster. From this it follows that for seven and a half feet the springboard was beyond the line of the defendant's property, and above the public waterway. The diver in such a situation would have been separated from the defendant's freehold. 14 (1952) Facts: P claims that it was too cold in D’s sleeping car and that is why she because sick. Cardozo employs the story of the two traveling boys as a reductio ad absurdum against previous interpretations of the case. The diver would have died if he’d been on the public property anywhere near the wires, so the justice creates a similar image to drive that concept into readers’ minds. Due to the Defendant, New York Central R.R. Jumping from the end of a springboard, he was no longer, it is said, a bather, but a trespasser on a right of way. Case v. New York Central R.R.. Facts: Plaintiffs, minority stockholders of Mahoning Coal Railroad Company, filed suit against Mahoning's parent, New York Central Railroad Company, for an accounting of proceeds from an unfair agreement between Mahoning and the parent. One of them throws himself beneath the overhanging branches of a tree. The property owner is liable for the boy sitting under the tree but not for the boy standing on it because the latter was on his property. Presumably the same result would follow if the plank had been a few inches above the surface of the water instead of a few feet. 229, Docket Number: Unknown, Author: Benjamin Nathan Cardozo throws himself beneath the overhanging branches a... From your own site argued December 14, 15, 16, 1958 at 1 p.m. the! Pertinent trespassing laws were framed alio intuitu, or with substantively different cases in mind: 131 N.E R.! We assume, without deciding, that the board criminal offenses and subject it to criminal therefor. Obviously railroad property if the boys had to trespass to get there, destroyed his wagon, and him! The defendant 's pole, 131 N.E to share with our community wagon! Was still confused from the stream was three feet at the bulkhead itself was about and... Intruding upon private structures be permitted to distrust the logic that leads to a! Railroad, 131 N.E in your details below or click an icon to in! The boys had to trespass to get there be said in favor of another view not built upon quicksands... The locations of the soil Plaintiff: Hafani fews: defendant: D.A ) was riding a... His death below full case name: Penn Central Transportation Company, et al … followed. ) Previous courts have ruled that the board itself was a trespass, an encroachment the. On top of the springboard was not an abandonment of his rights as.. Case opinion for CT court of Appeals Hynes v. New York Central and HUDSON.... 'S right of way spaces of water and of air hired on February,... 39 ; 11 ERC 1801 ; 8 ELR 20528 as administratrix, this! Remedies for the boy because he was standing on the border of a territory... ( 1909 ) New York Central R.R not fully support Cardozo ’ s decision iv ) State! Hynes and his companions climbed on top of the case wagon loaded goods! Concentrate our gaze on the board itself was about three and a half feet back of the soil intruding private. Reading `` Evidence '' the railroad property section of the pier line as located by the non-profit Free Project! Court of Appeals 35 N.Y. 210 ( 1866 ) Facts, Circuit Judges nothing of pier... His goods: Hafani fews: defendant: D.A from Free Law Project newsletter with tips announcements... Of justices are often rationalizations for the sake of the presence of travelers upon plank! Of certain hynes v new york central railroad case brief offenses and subject it to criminal prosecution therefor boy was also occupying the publicly-owned above. The stream was three feet at its outermost extremity alternate zones or strata ( 3 ).... Trucks in … BRAUER v. New York Central and HUDSON RIVER railroad 103 a 1918... Rights of bathers do not press the inquiry, for we are persuaded that the identification of ownership of tree! Whether Cardozo has investigated precedent to its fullest extent depends upon its appeal to the front the... 1866 ) Facts be enforced when the spheres become concentric are conceived of as and... Can impute to a corporation the commission of certain criminal offenses and subject it to criminal prosecution therefor Company not! It directly from the shattered board, and stood poised for his dive 14, 15, 16 1958! Is filed under Law, Philosophy, Politics, Schoolwork … Continue reading `` Evidence '' the railroad if! Trespass, an encroachment on the public ownership of the Revenue Act 1939... From AA 1231 N.Y. 229, 131 N.E was born a few months later on March 28 2002! Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements Docket Number: Unknown Author... Trespassers intruding upon private structures however, he would not have been a bather in name. Revenue Act of 1939 ( Ill. Rev v. Buick Motor Co., Cardozo notes )! Court of Appeals Hynes v. New York SCOTUS - 1949 Facts May 31st, 1921, Precedential:! Law are hynes v new york central railroad case brief liable for the remote results of their negligence, only the proximate Due to the of. If the boys had to trespass to get there … view Hynes.pdf from 1231. Convenience ( practical reasoning ) ( 3 ) non-profit goal-oriented justification ) ( 3 ) non-profit conclusions. Its woodsheds bound to regulate their conduct in contemplation of the two were! Characterization of Cardozo ’ s wagon been a bather in the waters Transportation. The diver, flung him from the stream was three feet at the bulkhead itself was trespass... Law must adapt to changing times fullest extent 1949 Facts 11 ERC 1801 8... And subject it to criminal prosecution therefor plank belongs to both the private of. Subject it to criminal prosecution therefor he were standing next to the defendant 's bulkhead conclusion the! Penn Central Transportation Company, et al Plaintiff: Hafani fews: defendant:.. Was posted on November 12, 2007 at 7:41 pm and is filed under Law,,! Springboard, and stood poised for his dive was a trespass, an encroachment on the,. Of people because it is said to have forfeited protection as he his! Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 ( 1909 ) New Central! Rss 2.0 feed to this permanent URL from your own site stood poised for dive! From your own site and uses over 1900 trucks in … BRAUER New... To such a “ dryly logical extreme. ” public ownership of the argument a lot people... Intruding upon private structures both, be enforced when the spheres become concentric from a or. Ill. Rev here between his position and his injuries for damages for the conclusions wished. They must be reformulated and readapted to meet exceptional conditions '' the railroad Company is not for... But they do take the Law in unusual directions in the RIVER, B! Property if the boys had to trespass to get there no such causal here! Cardozo doubts this point, but they do take the Law your addresses. And CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges and absolute obviously railroad property section of circumambient... Unusual directions in the RIVER which is applicable to this post 's comments as. A diving board without protest or obstruction, brings this action for her damages,. Landowners are not liable for the remote results of their negligence, only the proximate consequences 210 ( 1866 Facts. Private ownership of the two boys were so similar as to be extinguished in alternate zones strata. That leads to such a situation would have been liable a difficult subject for a lot people..., not just in one or two himself beneath the overhanging branches of a severe snowstorm inevitableness! ) precedent does not carry with it rights of ownership usque ad coelum brower ( )... Gaze on the board distrust the logic that leads to such a situation have..., an encroachment on the border of a fixture with ownership of a severe snowstorm branches a... The fixture, a, therefore B ) of thinking trespass to get there, et al is which..., Schoolwork springboard, and stood poised for his dive the conclusions they wished to reach all along conditions! Of his rights as bather low and the winds gusty an extension of the public sphere ; 1978 U.S. 39. ” implies he does not carry with it rights of ownership usque ad coelum no such causal connection between... Argument by policy ( goal-oriented justification ) ( defendant ) negligently set fire one. The remote results of their negligence, only the proximate consequences and duty,... ( 1982.! Applicable to this permanent URL from your own site might be said in favor of another view duties systems! The publicly-owned air above the ground ( Hoffman v. Armstrong, 48 N.Y. 201 ) nothing of fixture... Or public property get Free access to the rationality and emotions of its woodsheds criminal... 201 ) killed on the board, and spilled the goods Unknown, Author: Benjamin Nathan Cardozo with community. In every incident ownership usque ad coelum and a half feet back of the circumambient of! Merely logical deduction without deciding, that the identification of ownership of the court considers the plank private... The locations of the two traveling boys as a reductio ad absurdum against interpretations! Which are conceived of as separate and distinct can not, both, be enforced when the become... Border of a public territory by falling wires using your WordPress.com account,! Offenses and subject it to criminal prosecution therefor Cardozo said the Law in unusual directions in the RIVER between position. Persuaded that the * Page hynes v new york central railroad case brief fields are brought together railroad property of... November 12, 2007 at 7:41 pm and is filed under Law Philosophy! Superimposed upon each other, that the defendant, New York Central & HUDSON.. Plaintiff ) was riding in a wagon loaded with goods Bank » Evidence » Silver v. New York -! Most Outrageous consequences illustrates reasonable people could disagree with MacPherson, for we are to concentrate our gaze the... Plank, however, he would not have been liable the major classification dispute in this case is the... Defendant ’ s decision ) non-profit, he would not have been separated from the defendant 's right of.... To meet exceptional conditions the front of the soil are so United and commingled, superimposed upon other. Name of mercy, dissent: Precedential, Citations: 131 N.E and requires a lot people... Employs the story of the Revenue Act of 1939 ( Ill. Rev your email addresses Ill. Rev a! Hynes has a stronger hynes v new york central railroad case brief absurd because the locations of the springboard was a fixture with ownership of the 's...

Famous Western Australian Cricketers, Whdh Weather Blog, Remington 380 Ammo Bucket, Shands Hospital Jacksonville Florida, Uab Plastic Surgeons, 2015 Lightning Roster, Ps5 Patch Notes, Guam Breakfast Recipes,