McSween v. Murray

It was error to charge that the defendant was under the duty “ to exercise a high degree of care ” and to “ use *199a high degree of care for the safety of its passengers ” in the maintenance of its station platform. In this respect the degree of care required of the defendant differed from the degree of care imposed on the defendant in the transportation of its passengers. The defendant was only under the duty to exercise ordinary care. (Kelly v. Manhattan R. Co., 112 N. Y. 443; Lafflin v. Buffalo & Southwestern R. R. Co., 106 id. 136; Murphy v. Hudson & Manhattan R. R. Co., 180 App. Div. 585;…