Caffi v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Caffi v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

52 Misc. 570, 102 N.Y.S. 633

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 52 Misc. 570 (Caffi v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) 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

Caffi v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 52 Misc. 570, 102 N.Y.S. 633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLean, J.

The duty of the plaintiff, in the employ of a construction company, required him to watch for and warn workmen" of the approach of trains while they "were at work in the yard of the defendant at Fifty-sixth street and Park avenue. At the time he was struck by an engine of the defendant he was obviously not acting in the performance of his duty, which, as appears from the evidence, might and could have been performed from a position of safety. That through negligence or negligent ignorance he stood at the time of the accident in a position of danger, without any emergency or exigency therefor, does not entitle him to recover from the defendant, even if it were negligent, because he was himself at fault. Keeler v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 807. The verdict in favor of the plaintiff was, therefore, properly set aside and the order should be affirmed, with costs.

Gildebsleeve and Amend, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.

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

MacLean, J.

The duty of the plaintiff, in the employ of a construction company, required him to watch for and warn workmen" of the approach of trains while they "were at work in the yard of the defendant at Fifty-sixth street and Park avenue. At the time he was struck by an engine of the defendant he was obviously not acting in the performance of his duty, which, as appears from the evidence, might and could have been performed from a position of safety. That through negligence or negligent ignorance he stood at the time of the accident in a position of danger, without any emergency or exigency therefor, does not entitle him to recover from the defendant, even if it were negligent, because he was himself at fault. Keeler v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 114 App. Div. 807. The verdict in favor of the plaintiff was, therefore, properly set aside and the order should be affirmed, with costs.

Gildebsleeve and Amend, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 Misc. 570, 102 N.Y.S. 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caffi-v-new-york-central-hudson-river-railroad-nyappterm-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack