Wood v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 11, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. Upon the plaintiff’s own evidence, it does not appear either directly or by inference that he exercised any care or caution whatever.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 11, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. Upon the plaintiff’s own evidence, it does not appear either directly or by inference that he exercised any care or caution whatever. (Wallace v. C. V. R. R. Co., 138 N. Y. 302; Kaare v. T. S. & I. Co., 139 N. Y. 369; Williams v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 116 N. Y. 628;…
1DissentChase, J.
The defendant was not only a trespasser in making the excavation into which the plaintiff fell, but its liability for negligence is not seriously disputed. I do not agree that the plaintiff, by reason of his contractual relation with the defendant, is prevented as a matter of law from recovering for his personal injuries.
The duty of the station agent relating to the derailing switch was materially different and less exacting than his duty in relation to the switches in the main line of track. The derailing switch in question was placed in a- side track known as “ Lawton’s Siding,” which is a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re HanleinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901