Legal Opinion

Bartle v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided November 10, 1908PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

At the close of plaintiff's evidence defendant's counsel moved for a nonsuit upon the ground that the plaintiff had failed to make out any cause of action; had not shown any negligence on the part of the defendant which was the proximate cause of the accident; had failed to show freedom from contributory negligence. The plaintiff's counsel asked to go to the jury upon the question whether the plaintiff exercised due care in view of all the circumstances; also upon the question of the plaintiff's alleged contributory negligence and defendant's negligence. The trial judge granted the motion for…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Solomon v. Manhattan Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
  2. Mearns v. Central Railroad of New JerseyNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
  3. Brooks v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
  4. Delamatyr v. Milwaukee & Prairie du Chien RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869
  5. Bartholomew v. . New York Central Hudson River Rd. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hooker v. BlairMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Raymond G. Richards v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
  3. Spiesberger v. Michigan Cent. R.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1916

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API