Beethem v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Beethem v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

86 N.Y.S. 1129

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 19, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 86 N.Y.S. 1129 (Beethem v. Interurban Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beethem v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 86 N.Y.S. 1129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

GREIENBAUM, J.

This case was before this court on a former appeal. 86 N. Y. Supp. 700. The plaintiff’s proofs fall short from showing in what respects the defendant’s motorman was negligent, or that the plaintiff was himself free from negligence. The witnesses called by plaintiff corroborate all the defendant’s witnesses as to the position plaintiff was found in immediately after the accident, indicating that he was struck by the easterly side of the car—a view entirely at variance with the plaintiff’s version that he was working to the west of the southbound tracks when he was struck. The overwhelming evidence in the case as to the position of the plaintiff when struck forcibly impresses one with the improbability of the accident having happened as plaintiff now contends. The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GREIENBAUM, J.

This case was before this court on a former appeal. 86 N. Y. Supp. 700. The plaintiff’s proofs fall short from showing in what respects the defendant’s motorman was negligent, or that the plaintiff was himself free from negligence. The witnesses called by plaintiff corroborate all the defendant’s witnesses as to the position plaintiff was found in immediately after the accident, indicating that he was struck by the easterly side of the car—a view entirely at variance with the plaintiff’s version that he was working to the west of the southbound tracks when he was struck. The overwhelming evidence in the case as to the position of the plaintiff when struck forcibly impresses one with the improbability of the accident having happened as plaintiff now contends. The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.Y.S. 1129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beethem-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack