## Facts

- Edward Meagher rode a Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) train that passed through a station where the train was not scheduled to stop.
- As the train moved through that station, Meagher attempted to get off and was killed in the process.
- Marie Meagher, as executrix of her husband’s estate, sued LIRR in New York state court for negligence causing wrongful death.
- LIRR defended on contributory negligence and relied on Railroad Law § 83, which limited railroad liability for injuries connected to a passenger’s unauthorized presence on a train vestibule.
- LIRR submitted proposed jury instructions that would have directed the jury to find no liability if (a) Meagher got off while the train was in motion, or (b) his death was caused by riding on the vestibule within the scope of § 83.
- The trial court declined to charge the jury as LIRR requested and instead instructed, among other things, that:
  - contributory negligence would apply only if Meagher got off while the train was moving faster than about two or three miles per hour, and
  - § 83 did not apply when a person stepped onto a car vestibule, in preparation to get off, while the train was entering a station.
- After charging the jury, the judge told counsel that “exceptions or requests” would be heard in chambers.
- In open court, LIRR’s attorney stated he had no exceptions or requests, but asked to discuss a matter outside the jury’s hearing; once in chambers, LIRR asked the judge to charge the case in accordance with its earlier written requests.
- The judge stated on the record that the request had been made and was declined.
- During deliberations, the jury asked for additional guidance; the court reread portions of the charge, including the contributory-negligence and § 83 instructions, and LIRR did not object again.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; the Appellate Division affirmed, and LIRR appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether LIRR preserved its challenge to the jury instructions when it raised the matter immediately after the charge in a chambers conference identified by the trial judge as the time to state “exceptions or requests,” even though counsel did not object again after the court reread the same instructions.
2. Whether the trial court erred by instructing that Meagher could be contributorily negligent only if the train was moving faster than about two or three miles per hour when he attempted to get off.
3. Whether the trial court erred by effectively removing Railroad Law § 83 from the case by instructing that it did not apply when a passenger stepped onto the vestibule while the train was entering a station in preparation to get off.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that LIRR’s challenge to the charge was preserved for appellate review.
- The Court held that the instructions on contributory negligence and Railroad Law § 83 were erroneous and could have misled the jury on central liability questions.
- The Court reversed the judgment for the plaintiff and ordered a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A party preserves an objection to a jury charge when the trial court is fairly alerted to the claimed error at a time when the court can correct it; where the judge directs that exceptions or requests will be taken in chambers, making the request there can be sufficient.
- A party is not required to repeat an objection after a rereading of substantially the same charge once the court has already been asked to give the requested instruction and has declined.
- Contributory negligence in getting off a moving train is evaluated under the ordinary reasonable-care standard and all surrounding circumstances; it is error to impose a fixed low-speed cutoff that narrows the jury’s consideration.
- Railroad Law § 83, which limits liability tied to unauthorized use of a train vestibule, may apply even when a passenger steps onto the vestibule in anticipation of getting off; whether the statute applies on the facts should be left to the jury under correct instructions.

## Conclusion

The New York Court of Appeals ordered a new trial because LIRR adequately preserved its challenge to the charge through the chambers request the judge invited, and because the jury instructions improperly imposed a two-to-three-mile-per-hour threshold for contributory negligence and incorrectly limited LIRR’s statutory defense under Railroad Law § 83.


Meagher v. Long Island R.R. Co., 261 N.E.2d 384 (1970)