Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Mary Crocheron, Respondent, v. The North Shore Staten Island Ferry Company, Appellant, 1874 — 56 N.Y. 656 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
Mary Crocheron, Respondent, v. The North Shore Staten Island Ferry Company, Appellant
56 N.Y. 656·New York Court of Appeals·1874·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Mary Crocheron, Respondent, v. The North Shore Staten Island Ferry Company, Appellant.
(Argued April 9, 1874;
decided April 21, 1874.)
This was an action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have resulted from defendant’s negligence. Plaintiff was a passenger upon one of defendant’s boats. Upon each step of the main stairway of the boat was put a brass plate or covering, which was corrugated, save where it turned over the edge of the step; this was left smooth and slippery. Plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that she slipped on the edge of the step, as she was passing down the stairway to leave the boat, and was injured. The placing of this plate upon the stair was the alleged negligence. The stairs were finished in the same manner as upon the best river boats and upon American sea-going steamers. The boat had been in use a year and had carried, on an average, a thousand passengers a day; no injury of the kind had before occurred. Several experienced men testified that this mode of covering stairs was the best in use. Held, that the evidence failed to show negligence, and that a refusal to nonsuit plaintiff was error.
Sidney S. Harris for the appellant.
J. J. Murphy for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Andrews, J.,]
Andrews, J.,
reads for reversal and new trial.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.