Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Zwack v. New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 1, 1896Published

Appeal by the defendant, The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Erie on the 18th day of November, 1895, .upon the verdict of a jury rendered after a trial at the Erie Circuit, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 26tli day of November, 1895, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

1Concurrence

Hardin, P. J. (concurring) :

Plaintiff, as a witness, detailed the circumstances attending the accident. In stating the manner in which he approached the track where the injuries occurred, he said: “ I didn’t do anything else when I got there first, except wait for them engines. I looked both ways, east and west. I did not see any other trains coming from the west except these two engines. I did not see anything from the east. There were cars standing on the tracks where you switch to prevent my seeing the railroad toward the east; those tracks are off from the main tracks ; they are at the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Parsons v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Mills v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
  3. Pressman v. MooneyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896

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

Powered by the Exa API