Legal Opinion · Dissent
Russell v. Fusco
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 16, 1999Published
1DissentCrew Iii, J.
Because I believe that defendant Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, Inc. (hereinafter D & H) owed plaintiff Michael Russell no legal duty in the circumstances presented by the record here, I respectfully dissent. It has long been the rule that a railroad has a duty to give timely notice of the approach of its trains at public grade crossings, which notice includes, inter alia, warning by bell or whistle (see generally, Crough v New York Cent. R. R. Co., 260 NY 227; Foley v New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 197 NY 430; Vandewater v New York & New England R. R. Co., 135 NY 583). As a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Byrne v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R.New York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Crough v. New York Central R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Fischer v. New York Central RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1947
- Foley v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Fischer v. New York Central RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948