Bennett v. Hoffman
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtMayer, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The opposing testimony of witnesses, as to just how or why the collision of the cars occurred, need not be recited. The plaintiff introduced testimony intended to show that Coughlan, the chauffeur of defendant, was driving at a reckless rate of speed, whereas Coughlan testified that he was driving at a rate of about 30 miles an hour. The rate;of speed was a critical question in a sharp and.close controversy, as to the negligence of defendant and the contributory negligence of plaintiff. Coughlan testified on behalf of defendant. On cross-examination he was…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Luby v. . the Hudson River Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Kay v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Larkin v. . Nassau Electric R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Anderson v. Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburgh RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Sherman v. . D., L. W.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1887
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. KrulewitchCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- United States v. KrulewitchCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944