Hynes v. New York Central Railroad
231 N.Y. 229 (1921)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to individuals lawfully using an adjacent public way, and this duty is not defeated when an individual momentarily and incidentally comes into contact with a structure affixed to the landowner's property that projects into the public space.
Facts:
- Harvey Hynes, a sixteen-year-old boy, was swimming with friends in the Harlem River, a navigable public waterway.
- The defendant, New York Central Railroad, owned the right of way along the riverbank, which included poles with high-tension electric wires.
- A wooden plank, used as a springboard, was attached to the defendant's bulkhead and projected eleven feet out over the public river.
- For over five years, local swimmers had used the board for diving without protest from the defendant.
- On July 8, 1916, Hynes stood on the end of the springboard over the river, poised to dive.
- At that moment, a crossarm and electric wires fell from the defendant's pole, striking Hynes and causing his death.
Procedural Posture:
- Harvey Hynes's mother, as administratrix, brought a wrongful death action against the New York Central Railroad in the New York Trial Term (trial court).
- The trial court found in favor of the defendant railroad.
- The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment for the defendant.
- The plaintiff then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an individual who is poised to dive from a springboard that is affixed to a defendant's land but projects over a public waterway considered a trespasser, thereby relieving the defendant of the duty of ordinary care to prevent injury from its falling electrical wires?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardozo, J.
No. A person in such a position is not a trespasser for the purposes of determining a landowner's duty of care. The court held that Hynes's presence on the springboard was a subordinate and ancillary incident to his primary, lawful purpose of using the public waterway for swimming. The court rejected a rigid, formalistic application of property law, stating that 'rights and duties in systems of living law are not built upon such quicksands.' Cardozo reasoned that Hynes's entire activity was in the enjoyment of the public waters, and he did not abandon his rights as a bather by stepping on the board. Because the railroad's right-of-way and the public waterway were so 'united and commingled,' the court must look to 'considerations of analogy, of convenience, of policy, and of justice' rather than applying the landowner immunity rule for trespassers. Therefore, the defendant owed Hynes a duty of active vigilance and reasonable care.
Analysis:
This landmark decision showcases Judge Cardozo's move away from legal formalism toward a more pragmatic, realist jurisprudence. By refusing to apply the rigid category of 'trespasser,' the court adapted common law principles of landowner liability to a modern, complex scenario where private and public rights intersect. The case establishes a precedent for courts to look at the substance of a person's activity rather than their technical geographic position when determining the duty of care. It has significantly influenced tort law by promoting a more flexible, policy-based analysis in 'borderland' cases where legal categories are blurred.
Unlock the full brief for Hynes v. New York Central Railroad