Day v. Union Railway Co. of New York City

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Day v. Union Railway Co. of New York City

84 N.Y.S. 560

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 6, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 560 (Day v. Union Railway Co. of New York City) 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

Day v. Union Railway Co. of New York City, 84 N.Y.S. 560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

FREEDMAN, P. J.

Upon a careful review of the whole case it cannot be held that the verdict is against the weight of evidence. The claim that the court committed reversible error in charging the jury that it was defendant’s duty to bring the car to a stop, and allow it to remain in such a position for a length of time sufficient to allow plaintiff and her children to alight therefrom, on the ground that “sufficient” and “reasonable” are not synonymous terms, and the law requires only reasonable time, is without merit; because the jury were further instructed that no extraordinary, but only ordinary, care was required. The charge in its entirety fully protected every right of the defendant, and the complaint against the use of the word “sufficient” constitutes, under all the circumstances, mere verbal criticism.

The judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

FREEDMAN, P. J.

Upon a careful review of the whole case it cannot be held that the verdict is against the weight of evidence. The claim that the court committed reversible error in charging the jury that it was defendant’s duty to bring the car to a stop, and allow it to remain in such a position for a length of time sufficient to allow plaintiff and her children to alight therefrom, on the ground that “sufficient” and “reasonable” are not synonymous terms, and the law requires only reasonable time, is without merit; because the jury were further instructed that no extraordinary, but only ordinary, care was required. The charge in its entirety fully protected every right of the defendant, and the complaint against the use of the word “sufficient” constitutes, under all the circumstances, mere verbal criticism.

The judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/day-v-union-railway-co-of-new-york-city-nyappterm-1903.