Legal Opinion

Henning v. Rothschild

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided February 15, 1901PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan, in favor of the defendant.

1Opinion of the CourtO’Gorman, J.

The plaintiff was only required to exercise an amount of care commensurate with the apparent danger, and in proceeding forward after the passage of the car on the up track, he was not bound to anticipate that a vehicle going south would make a sharp turn at the north crossing, the point where the collision occurred. Hegligence will not be imputed to a party merely because he regulates his conduct upon the assumption that the other party will conduct himself with reasonable care. lithe defendant acted with ordinary prudence, he would not have made the turn in question until he proceeded…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kettle v. . TurlNew York Court of Appeals · 1900

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Yanz v. GradNew York Supreme Court · 1914

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

Powered by the Exa API