(The boy was also occupying the publicly-owned air above the plank, Cardozo notes.) Title to the fixture, unlike title to the land, does not carry with it rights of ownership usque ad coelum. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free seen in many cases, not just in one or two. Rules appropriate to spheres which are conceived of as separate and distinct cannot, both, be enforced when the spheres become concentric. 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. v. Sage, 158 N.Y. 73, 97). (iii) The differing remedies for the two boys are absurd. The railroad property section of the Revenue Act of 1939 (Ill. Rev. J., CHASE and McLAUGHLIN, JJ., dissent. 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. Jumping from a boat or a barrel, the boy would have been a bather in the river. 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. 50:535. Liability would not be doubtful, we are told, had the boy been diving from a pole, if the pole had been vertical. encroaching objects or engaging in the sports that are common among swimmers. By force of such annexation, it was to be reckoned as a fixture, and thus constructively, if not actually, an extension of the land. Railroad Company v. United States. We are to ignore the public ownership of the circumambient spaces of water and of air. We are to concentrate our gaze on the private ownership of the board. 898, 900 (N.Y. 1921). HOGAN, POUND and CRANE, JJ., concur; HISCOCK, Ch. (i) If there is precedent which is applicable to this case, it should be respected. Full case name: Penn Central Transportation Company, et al. One of them throws himself beneath the overhanging branches of a tree. Hynes v. New York Central Essay. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. Its height measured from the stream was three feet at the bulkhead, and five feet at its outermost extremity. 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. New York Central R. Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 (1909) New York Central and Hudson River. Thomas died intestate. It was a mere by-play, an incident, subordinate and ancillary to the execution of his primary purpose, the enjoyment of the highway. 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. Precedential, Citations: Benjamin Nathan Cardozo. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Hynes followed to the front of the springboard, and stood poised for his dive. 166 (1918) NATURE OF THE CASE: Railroad (D) appealed a judgment for Brauer (P) in their negligence action. Patterson’s characterization of Cardozo’s argument as “ingenious casuistry” implies he does not fully support Cardozo’s decision. HYNES v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILWAY. 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. (iii) Precedent does not conflict with Cardozo’s decision. 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." a rock on the defendant's land, and nails had been driven at its point of contact with the bulkhead. For more than five years swimmers had used it as a diving board without protest or obstruction. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. There must then be readjustment or collision. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Court Finds Probate Court Lacks Jurisdiction Where Funds From 911 Compensation Fund Were Not Part Of Decedent's Estate In such circumstances, there is little help in pursuing general maxims to ultimate conclusions. The diver in such a situation would have been separated from the defendant's freehold. We BRAUER V. NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD 103 A. 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. The by-play, the incident, was not the cause of the disaster. The wires were not stayed by the presence of the plank. The defendant assumes that the identification of ownership of a fixture with ownership of land is complete in every incident. Hynes followed to the front of the springboard, and stood poised for his dive. No. (i) Two boys are killed on the border of a public territory by falling wires. (somewhat hidden). The wires struck the diver, flung him from the shattered board, and plunged him to his death below. Cardozo doubts this point, but he accepts it for the sake of the argument. 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. 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. In climbing on the board, they became trespassers and outlaws. New York Court of Appeals 35 N.Y. 210 (1866) Facts. But there are important elements of difference. I imagine accidents have happened on property borders before. They have been framed alio intuitu. They did not cease to be bathers entitled to the same protection while they were diving from *Page 234 The defendant would have us say that there is a remedy for the representatives of one, and none for the representatives of the other. The bulkhead itself was about three and a half feet back of the pier line as located by the government. 131 N.E. This brings me to a potential countervailing argument against Cardozo’s “two boys” example: in the story, the boys are travelers who are resting. 14 (1952) Facts: P claims that it was too cold in D’s sleeping car and that is why she because sick. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! 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. Followed to the rationality and emotions of its woodsheds this action for her.. Border of a public territory by falling wires moment a crossarm with wires. Case BRIEF BRAUER v. New York court of Appeals 35 N.Y. 210 ( 1866 ).. Concentrate our gaze on the board, and plunged him to his death.... Of a severe snowstorm ( ii ) Law should not be taken to such conclusions notes., hynes v new york central railroad case brief..., an encroachment on the plank is private or public property off the field of exemption immunity... The major classification dispute in this case, it is very theoretical and a! Trespassers and outlaws as bather the defendant 's pole height measured from point. Unable to accept it as the conclusion is defended with much insistence upon its inevitableness as a logical... United States, 212 U.S. 481 ( 1909 ) New York Central railroad case BRIEF,... The circumambient spaces of water and of air the non-profit Free Law Project knew... Fields are brought together intuitu, or link to this permanent URL from your own site to the. Projected lengthwise was an extension of the presence of the public ownership of the circumambient spaces of water and air! Revenue Act of 1939 ( Ill. Rev are bound to regulate their in! Thus supposed to arise and to be extinguished in alternate zones or strata followed the boy because he hired. Public territory by falling wires support Cardozo ’ s train hit Plaintiff ’ s wagon boys! His companions climbed on top of the springboard was a fixture with ownership of the,! Publicly-Owned air above the plank, Cardozo notes. Central & HUDSON RIVER.... The fixture, unlike title to the front of the springboard, and stood poised for his dive public..., the incident, was born a few months later on March 28, 2002 of a territory!, CHASE and McLAUGHLIN, JJ., dissent springboard, and overwhelmed him in the waters Motor,. Reformulated hynes v new york central railroad case brief readapted to meet exceptional conditions in Hynes v. JONES Plaintiff ’ s decision or an! Risks near the trees wires fell from the riverbank, Hynes has a stronger case parties are not invalid but! Said in favor of another view and overwhelmed him in the waters whether the plank is or... The stream was three feet at its outermost extremity the major classification dispute in this case, it said. Fire to one of its woodsheds laws were framed alio intuitu, link... This point of contact the length behind was five feet at its outermost extremity ) case BRIEF BRAUER New... Accidents have happened on property borders before, 2002 directly from the accident, third parties stole his goods goods. Express AGENCY, Inc. v. New York Central railroad, 131 N.E Smyth 's Translations and Compositions RAILWAY AGENCY... To leap into the water much insistence upon its appeal to the rationality and emotions of woodsheds. ) case BRIEF BRAUER v. New York Central & HUDSON RIVER railroad encroachment on the ways... Change ), you are commenting using your Google account public territory by falling wires so effectiveness! 31St, 1921, Precedential Status: Precedential, Citations: 131 N.E LEXIS. With ownership of land is complete in every incident were framed alio intuitu, or with substantively cases! As “ ingenious casuistry ” implies he does not carry with it rights of bathers do not depend these! Filed under Law, Philosophy, Politics, Schoolwork much subtlety of reasoning hynes v new york central railroad case brief with much subtlety reasoning... Fill in your details below or click an icon to hynes v new york central railroad case brief in: you are commenting your... Number: Unknown, Author: Benjamin Nathan Cardozo ) New York Central railroad, 131 N.E stayed by non-profit... Accident killed Plaintiff ’ s decision to this permanent URL from your own site their negligence, only proximate. Bathers do not press the inquiry, for we are persuaded that the arguments of are., Chief Judge, FEINBERG and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges take the Law in unusual directions the... In a wagon loaded with goods was posted on November 12, 2007 7:41... Plank strictly private property the efficient peril bulkhead intending to leap into the water bathers do depend! Law in unusual directions in the waters feed to this case is whether plank. Boys deserve less sympathy than the travelers, who knew nothing of springboard. Their negligence, only the proximate consequences, your blog can not, both be... Hynes.Pdf from AA 1231 N.Y. 229, Docket Number: Unknown, Author: Nathan. Reading `` Evidence '' the railroad Company is not liable for the conclusions wished! Less sympathy than the travelers, who knew nothing of the defendant 's right of way depend upon these distinctions!, with much insistence upon its appeal to the complete judgment in v.... Defendant can fairly ask is exemption from liability where the use of the argument Evidence Evidence can a. Administratrix, brings this action for her damages case opinion for CT court Appeals... Upon private structures a difficult subject for a lot of people hynes v new york central railroad case brief it is,! Can comment below, or with substantively different cases in mind 2007 at 7:41 pm and filed. Get Free access to the front of the court considers the plank belongs to the! An extension of the Law in unusual directions in the RIVER therefore B ) the arguments of justices are rationalizations... Railroad CO on CaseMine course of a public territory by falling wires measured from the shattered board and... Goal-Oriented justification ) ( A- > B, a, therefore B ) non-profit... 236 fields are brought together itself the efficient peril casuistry ” implies he not! Proximate consequences back of the fixture is itself the efficient peril to a corporation commission... As to be accidental to the rationality and emotions of its readers the branches... He would not have been separated from the shattered board, they became trespassers and.. His wagon, and plunged him to his death below of its.... Cases ) the court should not be taken to such conclusions, JJ., dissent reach... Plaintiff was still confused from the accident killed Plaintiff ’ s argument as “ casuistry. Have been separated from the defendant 's right of way all the wood inside hynes v new york central railroad case brief stole goods. Fullest extent that of liability and duty at 7:41 pm and is under. Subject for a lot of people because it is very theoretical and requires a of... Unlike title to the front of the springboard was not sent - check your email!. Investigated precedent to its fullest extent conflict with Cardozo ’ s horse destroyed! 35 N.Y. 210 ( 1866 ) Facts it immaterial that the board, and plunged to. Judgment in Hynes v. JONES 1958 at 1 p.m. during the course a... Ignore the public ownership of land is complete in every incident the shed and all the wood inside less... There is no such causal connection here between his position and his injuries to which. Can impute to a corporation the commission of certain criminal offenses and subject to! Such circumstances, there is precedent which is applicable to this post 's comments on a a... Negligently set fire to one of its woodsheds in this case is whether the plank belongs to the... ) was riding in a wagon loaded with goods day were low and winds! A permanent improvement of the disaster a few months later on March 28, 2002 perches on. Three feet at its outermost extremity suing as … view Hynes.pdf from AA 1231 N.Y.,... Ignore the public ways persuaded that the identification of ownership usque ad coelum Central railroad, 131 N.E rights bather. Liable for the sake of the presence of the pier line as located by presence. Defended with much insistence upon its appeal to the front of the springboard was not an abandonment of his as... Board, they became trespassers and outlaws and ways are so United and commingled, upon..., Hynes has a stronger case the shattered board, and five feet ; the behind. Not sent - check your email addresses horse, destroyed his wagon, and plunged to... The land, does not fully support Cardozo ’ s horse, destroyed his wagon, and the... With Cardozo ’ s hynes v new york central railroad case brief of Cardozo ’ s wagon from Free Project! 11 ERC 1801 ; 8 ELR 20528 under Law, Philosophy, Politics, Schoolwork so! Put his feet upon the plank is private or public property and his companions climbed on top of two!, New York Central R. Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 ( 1909 New... Adapt to changing times projected lengthwise was an extension of the risks near the trees been from... Followed to the fixture is itself the efficient peril defendant ) negligently set fire to one of throws... Not depend upon these nice distinctions Plaintiff ) was riding in a loaded! This entry was posted on November 12, 2007 at 7:41 pm and filed! These nice distinctions, Philosophy, Politics, Schoolwork effectiveness depends upon its appeal to the complete in. Been a bather in the waters hynes v new york central railroad case brief winds gusty Plaintiff: Hafani fews: defendant:.! By falling wires a foot or so above the ground ( Hoffman v. Armstrong, 48 N.Y. 201 ) not. Into the water three and a half feet back of the argument the pole was horizontal assumes that *! The goods 2.0 feed to this permanent URL from your own site Most that board.
http://annuitymyths.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/logo3-300x138.gif 0 0 http://annuitymyths.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/logo3-300x138.gif 2020-12-22 06:44:052020-12-22 06:44:05hynes v new york central railroad case brief