Connor v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Connor v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

27 Misc. 541, 58 N.Y.S. 340

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Misc. 541 (Connor v. Metropolitan 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

Connor v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 27 Misc. 541, 58 N.Y.S. 340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLean, J.

According to the plaintiff’s version, she, a woman of sixty, being a passenger on the car of the defendant going downtown, asked the' conductor to stop at Twenty-third street, she heard the bell ring for the gripman to stop the car, the conductor called out Twenty-third street, and when it had come to a stop, she stepped down, putting her right foot down, taking hold of the rail, and just as she was taking hold of the rail, the car started and she was pulled down on her right side, and thrown upon the street.' The car stopped, as she said, just where she asked it to- stop, but where, with reference to the two crosswalks on Twenty-third street, or whether it • was on the north side of Twenty-third street, she could not remember. Eor the defendant four witnesses, the conductor, the gripman, a bicycle patrolman and a -passenger, tes-' tilled that the accident happened north of Twenty-third street, and that the plaintiff alighted from the car before it had come- to a stop at all (giving incidents with circumstantiality).

The judgment should be reversed, with costs. Pierce v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 21 App. Div. 427.

Fbeedmaw, P. J., concurs; Levextbitt, J., taking no part.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered,, with costs to appellant to abide' event.

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

MacLean, J.

According to the plaintiff’s version, she, a woman of sixty, being a passenger on the car of the defendant going downtown, asked the' conductor to stop at Twenty-third street, she heard the bell ring for the gripman to stop the car, the conductor called out Twenty-third street, and when it had come to a stop, she stepped down, putting her right foot down, taking hold of the rail, and just as she was taking hold of the rail, the car started and she was pulled down on her right side, and thrown upon the street.' The car stopped, as she said, just where she asked it to- stop, but where, with reference to the two crosswalks on Twenty-third street, or whether it • was on the north side of Twenty-third street, she could not remember. Eor the defendant four witnesses, the conductor, the gripman, a bicycle patrolman and a -passenger, tes-' tilled that the accident happened north of Twenty-third street, and that the plaintiff alighted from the car before it had come- to a stop at all (giving incidents with circumstantiality).

The judgment should be reversed, with costs. Pierce v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 21 App. Div. 427.

Fbeedmaw, P. J., concurs; Levextbitt, J., taking no part.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered,, with costs to appellant to abide' event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Misc. 541, 58 N.Y.S. 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connor-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack