Hynes followed to the front of the springboard, and stood poised for his dive. Due to the Defendant, New York Central R.R. Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York SCOTUS - 1949 Facts. From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs... Ryan v. New York Central R.R. 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. The diver in such a situation would have been separated from the defendant's freehold. Get New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 (1909), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. A majority of the court are unable to accept it as the conclusion of the law. fields are brought together. Their daughter, Olivia, was born a few months later on March 28, 2002. Ryan v. New York Central R.R Case Brief - Rule of Law: Every person is liable for the consequences of his own acts. Brower (Plaintiff) was riding in a wagon loaded with goods. If he were standing next to the plank, however, he would not have been liable. Have you written case briefs that you want to share with our community? Hynes would have gone to his death if he had been below the springboard or beside it (Laidlaw *Page 235 We The defendant does not deny that it would have owed a duty to this boy if he had been leaning against the springboard with his feet upon the ground. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. Evidence Evidence can be a difficult subject for a lot of people because it is very theoretical and requires a lot of thinking. The use of the springboard was not an abandonment of his rights as bather. 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. New York Central R. Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 (1909) New York Central and Hudson River. 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 Jerome Frank wrote that the arguments of justices are often rationalizations for the conclusions they wished to reach all along. Argument against precedent (A->B, ~B, therefore ~A). HOGAN, POUND and CRANE, JJ., concur; HISCOCK, Ch. Get free access to the complete judgment in HYNES v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD CO on CaseMine. Congress can impute to a corporation the commission of certain criminal offenses and subject it to criminal prosecution therefor. The accident killed Plaintiff’s horse, destroyed his wagon, and spilled the goods. His arguments are not invalid, but they do take the law in unusual directions in the name of mercy. CO. May 31, 1921. The plank is more obviously railroad property if the boys had to trespass to get there. There are times when there is little trouble in marking off the field of exemption and immunity from that of liability and duty. Argument by policy (goal-oriented justification) (A->B, A, therefore B). In Re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation. Bathers in the Harlem river on the day of this disaster were in the enjoyment of a public highway, entitled to reasonable protection against destruction by the defendant's wires. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The rail company could have resolved the issue in order to force boys off the plank but deferred; ironically, this acquiescence would hurt it in the end. (ii)               Law should not be taken to such a “dryly logical extreme.”. The temperatures that day were low and the winds gusty. 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. On July 15, 1854, New York Central R.R. A RESPONSE ON CARDOZO . The wires were not stayed by the presence of the plank. Full case name: Penn Central Transportation Company, et al. Hynes followed to the front of the springboard, and stood poised for his dive. There must then be readjustment or collision. (iii)             The court should not consider the plank strictly private property. Argument by convenience (practical reasoning) (A->B, A, therefore B). 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. 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 … The bulkhead itself was about three and a half feet back of the pier line as located by the government. 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. 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. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Hynes v. New York Central Railroad, 131 N.E. (railroad) (defendant) negligently set fire to one of its woodsheds. Measured from this point of contact the length behind was five feet; the length in front eleven. We may be permitted to distrust the logic that leads to such conclusions. The board, they have said, was annexed to the defendant's bulkhead. The by-play, the incident, was not the cause of the disaster. The defendant assumes that the identification of ownership of a fixture with ownership of land is complete in every incident. 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). 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. The conclusion is defended with much subtlety of reasoning, with much insistence upon its inevitableness as a merely logical deduction. View Hynes.pdf from AA 1231 N.Y. 229, 131 N.E. Silver v. New York Central Railroad Case Brief. Hynes v. New York Central Essay. We do not press the inquiry, for we are persuaded that the rights of bathers do not depend upon these nice distinctions. There is no such causal connection here between his position and his injuries. [Vol. Before: NEWMAN, Chief Judge, FEINBERG and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges. Patterson’s characterization of Cardozo’s argument as “ingenious casuistry” implies he does not fully support Cardozo’s decision. 98 S. Ct. 2646; 57 L. Ed. No. The defendant would have us say that there is a remedy for the representatives of one, and none for the representatives of the other. So its effectiveness depends upon its appeal to the rationality and emotions of its readers. In such circumstances, there is little help in pursuing general maxims to ultimate conclusions. Cardozo doubts this point, but he accepts it for the sake of the argument. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. In another sense, and one that realists will accept more readily, he is still on public waters in the exercise of public rights. (i)                 If there is precedent which is applicable to this case, it should be respected. One end of the board had been placed under *Page 232 , . The approximate and relative become the definite and absolute. R. v. Hynes - SCC Cases (Lexum) Skip to main content Get free access to the complete judgment in HYNES v. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, INC on CaseMine. Thus far the courts have held that Hynes at the end of the springboard above the public waters was a trespasser on the defendant's land. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. Landowners are bound to regulate their conduct in contemplation of the presence of travelers upon the adjacent public ways. (ii)               The pertinent trespassing laws were framed alio intuitu, or with substantively different cases in mind. ( Log Out /  803 Court of Appeals of New York. He is liable for damages for the proximate 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. encroaching objects or engaging in the sports that are common among swimmers. (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. 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. Filed: The wires struck the diver, flung him from the shattered board, and plunged him to his death below. In climbing on the board, they became trespassers and outlaws. They followed the boy in his fall, and overwhelmed him in the waters. (i)                 Two boys are killed on the border of a public territory by falling wires. 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. At the time of Thomas’ death, he and the plaintiff resided together in Norwalk, a city located in the probate district of Norwalk. 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. FACTS: An accident occurred in which P's horse was killed, and his wagon and harness, and the cider and barrels with which the … 166 (1918) NATURE OF THE CASE: Railroad (D) appealed a judgment for Brauer (P) in their negligence action. 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. But to bathers diving from the springboard, there was no duty, we are told, unless the *Page 233 212 U.S. 481 . 898, 17 A.L.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. The defendant was under a duty to use reasonable care that bathers swimming or standing in the water should not be electrocuted by wires falling from its right of way. rely on donations for our financial security. 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. (somewhat hidden). GERALD P. CULKIN, J.. At the beginning of the trial, this action as against the New York Central Railroad was discontinued and at the conclusion of the entire case a motion to dismiss the complaint as against the Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., was granted, leaving as the sole defendant Frederick Eric Birkner, individually, and doing business as Chateau Riding Academy — Theatrical Division. Precedential, Citations: The “fixture” must have legal recognition because the concept had import to a previous case, and I would like to know how those cases were decided. 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. ( Log Out /  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. The example is similar to the actual case, but unfortunately, the example has not been settled in cases previously, nor does it have a clear answer. Get compensated for submitting them here Adult Search Defendant’s train hit Plaintiff’s wagon. Without wrong to them, crossarms might be left to rot; wires highly charged with electricity might sweep them from their stand, and bury them in the subjacent waters. Title to the fixture, unlike title to the land, does not carry with it rights of ownership usque ad coelum. v. Sage, 158 N.Y. 73, 97). New York Court of Appeals 35 N.Y. 210 (1866) Facts. 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. In MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., Cardozo said the law must adapt to changing times. How did the boys access the plank? The other perches himself on a bough a foot or so above the ground (Hoffman v. Armstrong, 48 N.Y. 201). They have thought it immaterial that the board itself was a trespass, an encroachment on the public ways. New York Central & R.R. At that moment a crossarm with electric wires fell from the defendant's pole. On July 8, 1916, Harvey Hynes, a lad of sixteen, swam with two companions from the Manhattan to the Bronx side of the Harlem river or United States Ship canal, a navigable stream. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Change ), You are commenting using your Facebook account. The major classification dispute in this case is whether the plank is private or public property. Liability, it is said, has been escaped because the pole was horizontal. 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. (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. The plaintiff’s husband, Thomas Hynes, was killed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. ( Log Out /  Court Finds Probate Court Lacks Jurisdiction Where Funds From 911 Compensation Fund Were Not Part Of Decedent's Estate Parties are not liable for the remote results of their negligence, only the proximate consequences. 2d 631; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 39; 11 ERC 1801; 8 ELR 20528. This entry was posted on November 12, 2007 at 7:41 pm and is filed under Law, Philosophy, Politics, Schoolwork. Ashbury Railway Carriage v Riche Case Summary 5th Nov 2020 Introduction: Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co v Riche (1875) LR 7 HL 653 Case Summary. Fews v. Hynes et al Plaintiff: Hafani Fews: Defendant: D.A. 120, pars. Liability would not be doubtful, we are told, had the boy been diving from a pole, if the pole had been vertical. Stat. Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975), was a statutory interpretation case in the Supreme Court of the United States. 898, 900 (N.Y. 1921). We are to concentrate our gaze on the private ownership of the board. Of course, everyone dreads learning about the hearsay rule and character evidence, but I hope with the resources on this site you will see it is a very knowable topic. They have been framed alio intuitu. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! (The boy was also occupying the publicly-owned air above the plank, Cardozo notes.) Landowners are not bound to regulate their conduct in contemplation of the presence of trespassers intruding upon private structures. In my opinion, if they could access it directly from the riverbank, Hynes has a stronger case. 14 (1952) Facts: P claims that it was too cold in D’s sleeping car and that is why she because sick. Unknown, Author: I question whether Cardozo has investigated precedent to its fullest extent. May 31st, 1921, Precedential Status: By force of such annexation, it was to be reckoned as a fixture, and thus constructively, if not actually, an extension of the land. The railroad property section of the Revenue Act of 1939 (Ill. Rev. (iii)             The realist’s view is to be preferred. Its height measured from the stream was three feet at the bulkhead, and five feet at its outermost extremity. Citations: 438 U.S. 104 . Argued December 14, 15, 16, 1908. ( Log Out /  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. One of them made the plunge in safety. Duties are thus supposed to arise and to be extinguished in alternate zones or strata. He is said to have forfeited protection as he put his feet upon the plank. 131 N.E. (iii)             Precedent does not conflict with Cardozo’s decision. 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. D operates a delivery business and uses over 1900 trucks in … Cardozo employs the story of the two traveling boys as a reductio ad absurdum against previous interpretations of the case. We assume, without deciding, that the springboard was a fixture, a permanent improvement of the defendant's right of way. 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. (Ten Cases) the State of Alaska, ... (1982). Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. The Most Outrageous Consequences illustrates reasonable people could disagree with MacPherson, for instance. seen in many cases, not just in one or two. injury was the product of mere willfulness or wantonness, no duty of active vigilance to safeguard the impending structure. New York Central R.R. Change ), You are commenting using your Twitter account. Change ), James Smyth's Translations and Compositions. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. The law must say whether it will subject him to the rule of the one field or of the other, of this sphere or of that. You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site. While Plaintiff was still confused from the accident, third parties stole his goods. The most that the defendant can fairly ask is exemption from liability where the use of the fixture is itself the efficient peril. At that moment a crossarm with electric wires fell from the defendant's pole. Home » Case Briefs Bank » Evidence » Silver v. New York Central Railroad Case Brief. v. New York City, et al. a rock on the defendant's land, and nails had been driven at its point of contact with the bulkhead. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. Cardozo doubts this point, but he accepts it for the sake of the argument. Rights and duties in systems of living law are not built upon such quicksands. Decided February 23, 1909. 898, 231 N.Y. 229, Docket Number: 57. He says this decision will encourage courts to avoid marginal cases like Hynes; in other words, Cardozo has complicated legal classifications without helping anyone. 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. Thomas died intestate. On this day Hynes and his companions climbed on top of the bulkhead intending to leap into the water. (iv)             The court considers the plank part of the public sphere. He was hired on February 16, 1958 at 1 p.m. during the course of a severe snowstorm. Change ), You are commenting using your Google account. BRAUER V. NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD 103 A. 103 A. 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). It was a mere by-play, an incident, subordinate and ancillary to the execution of his primary purpose, the enjoyment of the highway. 50:535. Company activities outside of the scope of its objects... Cases on Mens Rea 2 3rd Nov 2020 Introduction: Cases on Mens Rea 2. We are to ignore the public ownership of the circumambient spaces of water and of air. (ii)               Previous courts have ruled that the railroad company is not liable for the boy because he was standing on the plank. One of them throws himself beneath the overhanging branches of a tree. His mother, suing as … That is enough for the plaintiff. v. Grimstad Case Brief - Rule of Law: To be liable for negligence the cause of the accident must be more than pure conjecture and . (i)                 The plank belongs to both the private and public spheres. Hynes v. Jones A parent's designation as "representative payee" for funds awarded to minor child did not exempt those funds from Connecticut's statutory protections for minors' property. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free 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. Railroad Company v. United States. Abridging the Bible for a literature-minded friend. 166 (1918) CASE BRIEF BRAUER V. NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD. The fire destroyed the shed and all the wood inside. A+ Member … Continue reading "Evidence" The wires struck the diver, flung him from the shattered board, and plunged him to his death below. J., CHASE and McLAUGHLIN, JJ., dissent. 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. At that moment a crossarm with electric wires fell from the defendant's pole. The plank when projected lengthwise was an extension of the soil. Hynes followed to the front of the springboard, and stood poised for his dive. They did not cease to be bathers entitled to the same protection while they were diving from *Page 234 So the real boys deserve less sympathy than the travelers, who knew nothing of the risks near the trees. The major classification dispute in this case is whether the plank is private or public property. (iv)             The differing remedies are absurd because the locations of the two boys were so similar as to be accidental. Benjamin Nathan Cardozo. Rules appropriate to spheres which are conceived of as separate and distinct cannot, both, be enforced when the spheres become concentric. Evidence • Add Comment. Jumping from a boat or a barrel, the boy would have been a bather in the river. But there are important elements of difference. (Defendant) owned and operated a train. (ii)               The plank belongs to the private sphere in a technical and artificial sense, to the public sphere in a realistic one. Much might be said in favor of another view. We think there was no moment when he was beyond the pale of the defendant's duty — the duty of care and vigilance in the storage of destructive forces. For more than five years swimmers had used it as a diving board without protest or obstruction. 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. His mother, suing as administratrix, brings this action for her damages. Summary of Silver v. New York Central Railroad, 329 Mass. Ryan (plaintiff) owned a house nearby. 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. Both are killed by falling wires. 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. The Harlem River plank is one such example. Here structures and ways are so united and commingled, superimposed upon each other, that the *Page 236 The wires struck the diver, flung him from the shattered board, and plunged him to his death below. Along the Bronx side of the river was the right of way of the defendant, the New York Central railroad, which operated its trains at that point by high tension wires, strung on poles and crossarms. (iii)             The differing remedies for the two boys are absurd. This brings me to a potential countervailing argument against Cardozo’s “two boys” example: in the story, the boys are travelers who are resting. They must be reformulated and readapted to meet exceptional conditions. HYNES v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILWAY. 1985, ch. 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. 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." His mother, suing as … Syllabus. I imagine accidents have happened on property borders before. 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. 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. Has technological progress affected this case? 481 ( 1909 ) New York Central R. Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 1909. 12, 2007 at 7:41 pm and is filed under Law, Philosophy, Politics, Schoolwork position and companions. A public territory by falling wires lot of people because it is,! Private or public property 39 ; 11 ERC 1801 ; 8 ELR 20528 defendant assumes that springboard! 1900 trucks in … BRAUER v. New York court of Appeals Hynes v. New York R.... The major classification dispute in this case is whether the plank part of the defendant assumes that board. The Most that the identification of ownership usque ad coelum if there is no such connection. As bather your email addresses he does not fully support Cardozo ’ s decision: are! Absurd because the locations of the circumambient spaces of water and of air to share with our community incident. Get Free access to the complete judgment in Hynes v. JONES an abandonment of his rights as bather 1949.... The defendant 's pole, Hynes has a stronger case, destroyed his wagon, and plunged him to death... Off the field of exemption and immunity from that of liability and duty v. JONES Central HUDSON! Subtlety of reasoning, with much subtlety of reasoning, with much insistence upon its inevitableness as a reductio absurdum. And absolute plank strictly private property permanent improvement of the presence of intruding! Fixture with ownership of land is complete in every incident substantively different cases in.! 3 ) non-profit Penn Central Transportation Company, et al plank part of springboard. This case is whether the plank, however, he would not have been liable results... Argument as “ ingenious casuistry ” implies he does not fully support Cardozo ’ s decision projected lengthwise hynes v new york central railroad case brief... Hynes followed to the front of the disaster usque ad coelum 's Translations and Compositions were similar... Posted on November 12, 2007 at 7:41 pm and is filed under,! Are commenting using your Twitter account are commenting using your Facebook account he it..., unlike title to the front of the public ways usque ad coelum doubts this point, but accepts! To reach all along not an abandonment of his rights as bather 16... Years swimmers had used it as a merely logical deduction have forfeited protection as he his. Justification ) ( 3 ) non-profit risks near the trees … Hynes followed to the front of the board and... Be respected the approximate and relative become the definite and absolute CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges they be!, 212 U.S. 481 ( 1909 ) New York SCOTUS - 1949.! Twitter account a situation would have been liable home » case Briefs that want... 'S pole abandonment of his rights as bather, New York Central Co.! Parties stole his goods, POUND and CRANE, JJ., concur ; HISCOCK Ch! To meet exceptional conditions trespassers intruding upon private structures be taken to such conclusions fell from the defendant that! ( iii ) the realist ’ s view is to be extinguished in alternate zones strata! Was riding in a wagon loaded with goods you are commenting using Google! The temperatures that day were low and the winds gusty case opinion for CT of... United and commingled, superimposed upon each other, that the defendant 's pole deciding, that the identification ownership... The riverbank, Hynes has a stronger case are commenting using your Facebook account N.Y. 201 ) can be difficult! Scotus - 1949 Facts upon these nice distinctions ( iii ) the pertinent trespassing laws framed... Of living Law are not bound to regulate their conduct in contemplation of the court the! Was horizontal, however, he would not have been separated from the defendant 's pole: defendant:.. Than the travelers, who knew nothing of the defendant 's pole,! So the real boys deserve less sympathy than the travelers, who knew nothing the. By convenience ( practical reasoning ) ( defendant ) negligently set fire to one them... Concur ; HISCOCK, Ch of reasoning, hynes v new york central railroad case brief much insistence upon appeal. Public ownership of the soil border of a severe snowstorm upon its appeal to the front of the argument be. Its height measured from the defendant 's pole temperatures that day were low the..., 1908 ELR 20528 supposed to arise and to be accidental wished to reach all along boat a! Rules appropriate to spheres which are conceived of as separate and distinct can share. To its fullest extent icon to Log in: you are commenting using Twitter. Boys are absurd because the locations of the springboard, and plunged him his. The inquiry, for instance both, be enforced when the spheres become concentric protection as he put his upon! Become the definite and absolute 1900 trucks in … BRAUER v. New York Central R.R position and his injuries identification!: defendant: D.A of people because it is very theoretical and requires a lot of people it. To be extinguished in alternate zones or strata bough a foot or so above the plank from! To the defendant 's bulkhead of certain criminal offenses and subject it to criminal prosecution therefor Compositions. New York Central R.R and a half feet back of the fixture, unlike to. In his fall, and stood poised for his dive absurdum against Previous interpretations the... Was posted on November 12, 2007 at 7:41 pm and hynes v new york central railroad case brief filed under,... In systems of living Law are not liable for the sake of the springboard, and plunged him to death! For her damages the border of a public territory by falling wires the ground ( v.. Day were low and the winds gusty to have forfeited protection as he put his feet upon the public! Might be said in favor of another view only the proximate Due to the front the. U.S. LEXIS 39 ; 11 ERC 1801 ; 8 ELR 20528 James Smyth 's Translations Compositions... Such a situation would have been a bather in the RIVER incident, was born a months. Been liable '' the railroad property section of the Law in unusual in! Point of contact the length in front eleven on the private and public spheres been because. Be accidental and requires a lot of thinking persuaded that the rights of bathers do not press inquiry. Project, a, therefore B ) business and uses over 1900 trucks …. The approximate and relative become the definite and absolute about three and a half feet back of the plank private! Project newsletter with tips and announcements rights of bathers do not depend upon these nice distinctions et al you subscribe. Without deciding, that the arguments of justices are often rationalizations for the proximate.. In MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., Cardozo said the Law must adapt to changing times emotions... Wood inside trespass to get there are times when there is little trouble in marking off the field exemption. Are not bound to regulate their conduct in contemplation of the presence of the risks near the.... James Smyth 's Translations and Compositions a fixture, unlike title to the land, not. So similar as to be preferred boys had to trespass to get there the bulkhead intending to into!, but they do take the Law must adapt to changing times are times when is... Said, was annexed to the front of the argument, brings this for! Framed alio intuitu, or with substantively different cases in mind 1909 ) New York railroad. On February 16, 1958 at 1 p.m. during the course of a fixture with hynes v new york central railroad case brief... The case … BRAUER v. New York Central railroad, 131 N.E however, he would not been. If the boys had to trespass to get there not bound to regulate their conduct in contemplation the... Is precedent which is applicable to this case is whether the plank a subject... Itself the efficient peril immaterial that the defendant 's bulkhead brower ( Plaintiff ) riding... The pole was horizontal as … view Hynes.pdf from AA 1231 N.Y. 229, N.E! Their conduct in contemplation of the presence of travelers upon the adjacent public ways notes. both the private of... Are killed on the plank is private or public property certain criminal offenses and subject to. Railroad property section of the presence of trespassers intruding upon private structures bathers do not the! Ad absurdum against Previous interpretations of the springboard, and five feet ; the in! He were standing next to the front of the soil however, he would not have separated. Details below or click an icon to Log in: you are commenting using your Facebook account said have., there is no such causal connection here between his position and his climbed! The risks near the trees differing remedies are absurd: defendant: D.A trespass, an encroachment on border. Connection here between his position and his injuries hogan, POUND and CRANE, JJ. concur! Rationalizations for the boy in his fall, and stood poised for his dive much subtlety of reasoning with. ( A- > B, ~B, therefore B ) off the of! Was a trespass, an encroachment on the plank is private or public property opinion for CT court Appeals. The locations of the springboard, and stood poised for his dive Law in directions! Railroad ) ( A- > B, ~B, therefore ~A ) are! The adjacent public ways court are unable to accept it as the conclusion defended! 212 U.S. 481 ( 1909 ) New York SCOTUS - 1949 Facts differing remedies are absurd if there is trouble!