Legal Opinion
Dominianni v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Harrison Town Court
Decided September 29, 1981PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Harvey J. Fried, J.
This action by a Conrail commuter for breach of his contract of carriage, by reason of Conrail furnishing persistently late, overcrowded, unheated, odorous and filthy trains, requires at the outset a determination of the nature of the rights and obligations to which his commutation ticket entitled him.
i
THE STANDARD OF SERVICE TO WHICH A PASSENGER IS entitled:
The common-law view, well settled as early as Willis v Long Is. R.R. Co. (34 NY 670, 683), was that a passenger was entitled to be transported “safely and properly” within “suitable and reasonable…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Park West Management Corp. v. MitchellNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. Puritan Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Willis v. . Long Island Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Javeline v. Long Island RailroadCivil Court of the City of New York · 1981
- Hewitt v. N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1940
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Fendelman v. ConrailJustice Court of Scarsdale · 1983
- Leeds v. Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityCivil Court of the City of New York · 1982