Legal Opinion

Brinkerhoff v. Pennsylvania Railroad

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

Decided November 7, 1935Published

1Dissent

Edgcomb, J. (dissenting).

As I am unable to concur in the judgment about to be rendered by this court, I deem it proper to state the reasons which have led me to differ with the majority of my associates.

I am not unmindful of the fact that the burden rests upon the defendant to show that the decedent was guilty of contributory negligence, and that the plaintiff must be given the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence.

It is true that the record is barren of any direct evidence that the decedent did not look for a moving train as he approached the fatal crossing on…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Dolfini v. . Erie R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1904
  2. Cassidy v. . Fonda, Johnstown and Gloversville Rd. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1922
  3. Cassidy v. Fonda, Johnstown & Gloversville RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  4. McCowan v. Lehigh Valley RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
  5. McAuliffe v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API