Casso v. Nassau Electric Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Casso v. Nassau Electric Railroad

57 N.Y.S. 482, 40 A.D. 609

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

DecidedApril 18, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 57 N.Y.S. 482 (Casso v. Nassau Electric Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casso v. Nassau Electric Railroad, 57 N.Y.S. 482, 40 A.D. 609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

GOODRICH, P. J.

The plaintiff sues to recover for damages received while alighting from a car. of the defendant, at the comer [483]*483of Fifteenth street and Third avenue. Her claim is that the car had stopped, and, while she was in the act of alighting, started, and she was thrown to the ground. The defendant claims that the car did not start, and that the plaintiff fell on the street, several feet distant from the car. There was very contradictory evidence on the questions involved, which required the submission of the issue to the jury. To have dismissed the complaint would have been error. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff,, and with the verdict we shall not interfere.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

GOODRICH, P. J.

The plaintiff sues to recover for damages received while alighting from a car. of the defendant, at the comer [483]*483of Fifteenth street and Third avenue. Her claim is that the car had stopped, and, while she was in the act of alighting, started, and she was thrown to the ground. The defendant claims that the car did not start, and that the plaintiff fell on the street, several feet distant from the car. There was very contradictory evidence on the questions involved, which required the submission of the issue to the jury. To have dismissed the complaint would have been error. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff,, and with the verdict we shall not interfere.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 N.Y.S. 482, 40 A.D. 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casso-v-nassau-electric-railroad-nyappdiv-1899.