Bullock v. . New York Central and Hudson River Rd. Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Bullock v. . New York Central and Hudson River Rd. Co.

108 N.E. 1090, 213 N.Y. 694, 1915 N.Y. LEXIS 1500

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 12, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 108 N.E. 1090 (Bullock v. . New York Central and Hudson River Rd. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bullock v. . New York Central and Hudson River Rd. Co., 108 N.E. 1090, 213 N.Y. 694, 1915 N.Y. LEXIS 1500 (N.Y. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the defendant owed the plaintiff the duty of reasonable care in the maintenance of its station platform and the approaches thereto, but we are also of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to show that the defendant violated that duty, or that the plaintiff, himself, was free from contributory negligence. The case being one in which the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the Appellate Division acted within its power in making the disposition of the case which the trial court should have made. (Middleton v. Whitridge, 213 N. Y. 499, decided herewith.)

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscook, Chase, Hogan, Miller and Cardozo, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the defendant owed the plaintiff the duty of reasonable care in the maintenance of its station platform and the approaches thereto, but we are also of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to show that the defendant violated that duty, or that the plaintiff, himself, was free from contributory negligence. The case being one in which the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the Appellate Division acted within its power in making the disposition of the case which the trial court should have made. (Middleton v. Whitridge, 213 N. Y. 499, decided herewith.)

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscook, Chase, Hogan, Miller and Cardozo, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 N.E. 1090, 213 N.Y. 694, 1915 N.Y. LEXIS 1500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullock-v-new-york-central-and-hudson-river-rd-co-ny-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack