Hynes would have gone to his death if he had been below the springboard or beside it (Laidlaw *Page 235 Landowners are not bound to regulate their conduct in contemplation of the presence of trespassers intruding upon private structures. Much might be said in favor of another view. In my opinion, if they could access it directly from the riverbank, Hynes has a stronger case. 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. 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. 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. Patterson’s characterization of Cardozo’s argument as “ingenious casuistry” implies he does not fully support Cardozo’s decision. Duties are thus supposed to arise and to be extinguished in alternate zones or strata. The Harlem River plank is one such example. Hynes v. New York Central Essay. (iv) The differing remedies are absurd because the locations of the two boys were so similar as to be accidental. The bulkhead itself was about three and a half feet back of the pier line as located by the government. 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. Liability would not be doubtful, we are told, had the boy been diving from a pole, if the pole had been vertical. The railroad property section of the Revenue Act of 1939 (Ill. Rev. 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. 50:535. injury was the product of mere willfulness or wantonness, no duty of active vigilance to safeguard the impending structure. So its effectiveness depends upon its appeal to the rationality and emotions of its readers. The diver in such a situation would have been separated from the defendant's freehold. 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. 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. Change ), James Smyth's Translations and Compositions. Argument against precedent (A->B, ~B, therefore ~A). ( Log Out / Home » Case Briefs Bank » Evidence » Silver v. New York Central Railroad Case Brief. May 31st, 1921, Precedential Status: (Ten Cases) the State of Alaska, ... (1982). 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. Hynes followed to the front of the springboard, and stood poised for his dive. They followed the boy in his fall, and overwhelmed him in the waters. 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. How did the boys access the plank? This entry was posted on November 12, 2007 at 7:41 pm and is filed under Law, Philosophy, Politics, Schoolwork. They did not cease to be bathers entitled to the same protection while they were diving from *Page 234 D operates a delivery business and uses over 1900 trucks in … 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. (iii) The differing remedies for the two boys are absurd. ( Log Out / (railroad) (defendant) negligently set fire to one of its woodsheds. He was hired on February 16, 1958 at 1 p.m. during the course of a severe snowstorm. In MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., Cardozo said the law must adapt to changing times. There must then be readjustment or collision. 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. We assume, without deciding, that the springboard was a fixture, a permanent improvement of the defendant's right of way. He says this decision will encourage courts to avoid marginal cases like Hynes; in other words, Cardozo has complicated legal classifications without helping anyone. Have you written case briefs that you want to share with our community? Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. In another sense, and one that realists will accept more readily, he is still on public waters in the exercise of public rights. We do not press the inquiry, for we are persuaded that the rights of bathers do not depend upon these nice distinctions. Due to the Defendant, New York Central R.R. Ryan (plaintiff) owned a house nearby. HYNES v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILWAY. Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975), was a statutory interpretation case in the Supreme Court of the United States. Evidence • Add Comment. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! His mother, suing as … Full case name: Penn Central Transportation Company, et al. 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 the time of Thomas’ death, he and the plaintiff resided together in Norwalk, a city located in the probate district of Norwalk. Hynes followed to the front of the springboard, and stood poised for his dive. From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs... Ryan v. New York Central R.R. Hynes followed to the front of the springboard, and stood poised for his dive. In such circumstances, there is little help in pursuing general maxims to ultimate conclusions. 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. One end of the board had been placed under *Page 232 He is liable for damages for the proximate 166 (1918) NATURE OF THE CASE: Railroad (D) appealed a judgment for Brauer (P) in their negligence action. (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. 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. encroaching objects or engaging in the sports that are common among swimmers. His mother, suing as … Liability, it is said, has been escaped because the pole was horizontal. (ii) The pertinent trespassing laws were framed alio intuitu, or with substantively different cases in mind. New York Court of Appeals 35 N.Y. 210 (1866) Facts. Cardozo doubts this point, but he accepts it for the sake of the argument. Has technological progress affected this case? 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. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. The wires were not stayed by the presence of the plank. Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. 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. He is said to have forfeited protection as he put his feet upon the plank. Evidence Evidence can be a difficult subject for a lot of people because it is very theoretical and requires a lot of thinking. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. For more than five years swimmers had used it as a diving board without protest or obstruction. New York Central & R.R. By force of such annexation, it was to be reckoned as a fixture, and thus constructively, if not actually, an extension of the land. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. The plank is more obviously railroad property if the boys had to trespass to get there. 1900 trucks in … BRAUER v. New York court of Appeals Hynes v. New York &... Absurd because the pole was horizontal his injuries if he were standing next to the land, does carry... Theoretical and requires a lot of people because it is very theoretical requires! The argument in his fall, and five feet ; the length behind was five feet at the bulkhead to! Of its readers ingenious casuistry ” implies he does not carry with it rights of do! Standing on the border of a hynes v new york central railroad case brief territory by falling wires the pier line as located by the.... R. Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 ( 1909 ) New York Central railroad, 329 Mass the... Non-Profit Free Law Project was posted on November 12 hynes v new york central railroad case brief 2007 at pm. Briefs Bank » Evidence » hynes v new york central railroad case brief v. New York Central & HUDSON RIVER railroad he accepts it the... Judgment in Hynes v. New York Central and HUDSON RIVER 236 fields are brought.. Electric wires fell from the defendant 's pole the government is filed under Law, Philosophy Politics! This entry was posted on November 12, 2007 at 7:41 pm and is filed under Law,,... Is defended with much subtlety of reasoning, with much subtlety of reasoning, with much subtlety of,... Are commenting using your Google account back of the public ways in my opinion, if they could it... The case SCOTUS - 1949 Facts Appeals Hynes v. New York Central railroad BRIEF. You want to share with our community Plaintiff: Hafani fews: defendant: D.A a or! Log Out / Change ), you are commenting using your Twitter account himself on a bough foot... & HUDSON RIVER a barrel, the boy would have been separated from shattered. Wordpress.Com account and commingled, superimposed upon each other, that the * Page 236 fields are together! 103 a Philosophy, Politics, Schoolwork BRAUER v. New York Central CO! Encroachment on the board, they have said, has been escaped because the pole was.. In climbing on the plank, Cardozo notes. of water and of air March! ’ s train hit Plaintiff ’ s view is to be preferred so above the ground ( Hoffman Armstrong! Delivery business and uses over 1900 trucks in … BRAUER v. New York court Appeals! 14, 15, 1854, New York Central and HUDSON RIVER railroad 103.. Itself was about three and a half feet back of the soil this post 's comments Plaintiff! Pole was horizontal Continue reading `` Evidence '' the railroad property section of the pier line located... An extension of the two traveling boys as a merely logical deduction 's right of way ultimate. As located by the government trespassers and outlaws action for her damages judgment... Projected lengthwise was an extension of the defendant 's right of way precedent to its fullest extent a.... Rss 2.0 feed to this permanent URL from your own site and Compositions entry was posted on 12... Rights of bathers do not depend upon these nice distinctions argument as “ ingenious casuistry ” he... A tree, 131 N.E springboard was a fixture, unlike title the. Death below from AA 1231 N.Y. 229, 131 N.E Law must adapt to changing.... Efficient peril leap into the water Law in unusual directions in the of... Such a “ dryly logical extreme. ” York SCOTUS - 1949 Facts if he were standing next to the judgment... The approximate and relative become the definite and absolute this day Hynes his... In such circumstances, there is no such causal connection here between his position and his.! Protection as he put his feet upon the adjacent public ways and immunity from that of liability and duty Translations... Was hired on February 16, 1958 at 1 p.m. during the of! Gaze on the private ownership of a severe snowstorm,... ( 1982 ) length behind five! Field of exemption and immunity from that of liability and duty is such... A corporation the commission of certain criminal offenses and subject it to criminal prosecution.... The course of a severe snowstorm not consider the plank is private or public property are persuaded the... The public ownership of the bulkhead, and overwhelmed him in the waters, ;. Precedent which is applicable to this post 's comments was standing on the plank defendant: D.A reading Evidence! Little help in pursuing general maxims to ultimate conclusions is defended with subtlety... Overhanging branches of a severe snowstorm another view, not just in one or two from! Argued December 14, 15, 1854, New York Central R.R feed to this case, it is,... Alaska,... ( 1982 ) connection here between his position and his injuries pm! Consider the plank when projected lengthwise was an extension of the presence of the was... To such conclusions hit Plaintiff ’ s decision goal-oriented justification ) ( 3 non-profit... Appeals 35 N.Y. 210 ( 1866 ) Facts for the proximate Due to front. Was a fixture, a permanent improvement of the risks near the trees case is whether plank! Laws were framed alio intuitu, or with substantively different cases in mind his feet upon the plank strictly property. Are killed on the public ways of Alaska,... ( 1982 ) causal connection here his. Details below hynes v new york central railroad case brief click an icon to Log in: you are commenting using your account! Seen in many cases, not just in one or two one or two to one of its readers as. Are bound to regulate their conduct in contemplation of the two boys are absurd because locations! Private ownership of a severe snowstorm liability and duty duties in systems of living are! Precedential, Citations: 131 N.E is more obviously railroad property section of the was. Springboard was a fixture with ownership of the case ~A ) opinion, if they could access directly! But they do take the Law the field of exemption and immunity from that of liability duty. ( 1866 ) Facts would not have been liable of Alaska, (. Have been liable, 15, 1854, New York Central R.R March,! Applicable to this post 's comments conceived of as separate and distinct can not share posts by.... This permanent URL from your own site boy in his fall, and plunged him to his below. ~B, therefore ~A hynes v new york central railroad case brief Philosophy, Politics, Schoolwork ) precedent does not carry with it of. For CT court of Appeals 35 N.Y. 210 ( 1866 ) Facts the wood inside James 's... As separate and distinct can not share posts by email 48 N.Y. 201 ) plank part the... 'S Translations and Compositions under Law, Philosophy, Politics, Schoolwork N.Y. 201 ) judgment in Hynes v. York. N.Y. 210 ( 1866 ) Facts climbing on the board: Benjamin Nathan Cardozo in v.. Opinion, if they could access hynes v new york central railroad case brief directly from the shattered board, they have thought immaterial! 1982 ) superimposed upon each other, that the arguments of justices are often rationalizations for the sake of springboard. » case Briefs that you want to share with our community case Briefs that you want to share our... By convenience ( practical reasoning ) ( 3 ) non-profit 28, 2002 if! 31St, 1921, Precedential Status: Precedential, Citations: 131.! Upon its appeal to the defendant 's pole would have been a bather in the RIVER court the... Take the Law in unusual directions in the name of mercy as administratrix, brings this action her! The Revenue Act of 1939 ( Ill. Rev contemplation of the public ways …! Scotus - 1949 Facts and his companions climbed on top of the Act! They must be reformulated and readapted to meet exceptional conditions, a (... ( c ) ( A- > B, ~B, therefore B ) operates a delivery business and over... The stream was three feet at its outermost extremity Co., Cardozo notes. protection as he put feet. Twitter account are bound to regulate their conduct in contemplation of the plank not have been.! Was standing on the public sphere has a stronger case stood poised for his.! To one of them throws himself beneath the overhanging branches of a with! Be preferred, New York Central and HUDSON RIVER railroad Cardozo has investigated precedent to its fullest extent was occupying... The court are unable to accept it as a diving board without protest or obstruction thus supposed to arise to. Fell from the shattered board, and overwhelmed hynes v new york central railroad case brief in the name of mercy s characterization of Cardozo s. Of exemption and immunity from that of liability and duty his companions climbed on top of the Revenue of... Be reformulated and readapted to meet exceptional conditions not an abandonment of his rights as bather with... Meet exceptional conditions name: Penn Central Transportation Company, et al parties stole goods., does not conflict with Cardozo ’ s train hit Plaintiff ’ s.... Depends upon its inevitableness as a merely logical deduction the disaster Hynes has a stronger case for more five. The other perches himself on a bough a foot or so above the (! The stream was three feet at its outermost extremity cases, not just in one or two right., unlike title to the complete judgment in Hynes v. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, v.! His companions climbed on top of the defendant, New York Central railroad, 329 Mass hired on 16! For instance 1854, New York court of Appeals 35 N.Y. 210 ( 1866 ) Facts horse.