## Facts

- Milton Rivera fell from a Manhattan subway platform onto the tracks at the 42nd Street and Sixth Avenue station, was struck by an arriving train, and died hours later.
- Two platform witnesses observed Rivera acting erratically and staggering as if intoxicated or under the influence before the train arrived.
- A police report recorded the operator’s statement that he saw Rivera stumble and fall to the tracks after staggering.
- The operator testified he first saw Rivera when the train was about 30–60 feet away and that Rivera was already moving from the platform onto the tracks; the operator immediately applied the emergency brake.
- The plaintiff contended the operator observed Rivera staggering near the platform edge for a sufficient period before the fall to slow or stop earlier.
- Evidence indicated operators have limited ability to see passengers until they are very near the track, and the train was traveling at a reasonable and prudent speed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing a requested jury instruction on the emergency doctrine where evidence could support that the operator faced a sudden, unexpected peril.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing a requested jury instruction on foreseeability to frame the scope of negligence in light of reasonably foreseeable risks.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the Appellate Division’s order affirming judgment for the plaintiff.
- The court held the trial court should have charged the jury on both the emergency doctrine and foreseeability because each was supported by evidence and central to the negligence determination.
- The instructional errors were prejudicial; the case was remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- When evidence permits a finding that a defendant was confronted with a sudden and unexpected circumstance leaving little or no time for deliberation, the jury should be instructed under the emergency doctrine to evaluate reasonableness in that context rather than by hindsight.
- In negligence cases, liability depends on risks that are reasonably foreseeable; a defendant is not required to anticipate every conceivable mishap.
- Where the parties’ theories turn on whether a particular event was reasonably foreseeable and that concept is requested and supported by the proof, the jury should be explicitly instructed on foreseeability as part of duty and breach.
- Failure to give requested, supported instructions on controlling negligence concepts warrants a new trial when the omissions may have affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the jury was not instructed on the emergency doctrine and foreseeability, two doctrines supported by the evidence and necessary to properly assess whether the train operator and transit authority acted reasonably under the circumstances.


Rivera v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 569 N.E.2d 432 (N.Y. 1991)