Legal Opinion
Panarese v. Union Railway Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided March 1, 1933PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCrane, J.
The doctrine of “ the last clear chance,” upon which the recovery against the defendant has been obtained, has no application to the facts in this case. The ordinary rules of negligence and contributory negligence alone control. John Panarese ran along the street into an approaching trolley car and was killed, because he did not see the car and because the motorman did not stop. Both were negligent, for which reason the plaintiff, administratrix, cannot recover. The facts, more in detail, are these:
The defendant, The Union Railway Company of New York city, operates a street surface railroad…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Fonda v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Dyerson v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- Woloszynowski v. N.Y.C.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Bragg v. Central New England Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Butler v. Rockland, Thomaston & Camden Street RailwaySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1904
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Dominguez v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Chadwick v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1950
- Kumkumian v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
- Storr v. New York Central R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1933
- Hernandez v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1940
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.