156 N.Y. 684 | NY | 1898
The motion for a reargument of this case should be denied. In the opinion heretofore handed down, it was attempted to be shown that, under the particular circumstances *685 of the case, the charge made at the request of the plaintiff, that a railroad company is bound to exercise all the care and skill which human prudence and foresight can suggest to secure the safety of its passengers, while correct in some cases, in the present case might well have misled the jury into the belief that such was the rule of responsibility applicable to the decision of the issue between the plaintiff and the defendant. The application of such a strict rule under the facts of this case would have been quite unjustifiable.
It was said in Unger v. Forty-second St., etc., R.R. Co. (
In the Coddington case the street car was approaching a steam railroad crossing, which is a dangerous place, and it was held to have been correct to charge the jury that the defendant was bound to use the highest degree of care and prudence and to do all to avoid accident, which the utmost human skill and foresight could suggest; it being remarked in the opinion, "the charge when applied to a carrier of passengers at such a place was strictly accurate."
There is nothing in this application for a reargument, other than an attempt to show that in our decision of the case we have changed a rule of care applicable to the carrier of passengers. We have done nothing of the kind; but have simply pointed out what the proper rule was under the issue and the circumstances disclosed by the record.
The motion should be denied, with ten dollars costs.
All concur, except O'BRIEN and VANN, JJ., not voting.
Motion denied.