Dowd v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad

New York City Court

Dowd v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad

33 N.Y.S. 1127, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 867

DecidedApril 22, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 33 N.Y.S. 1127 (Dowd v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York City Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dowd v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad, 33 N.Y.S. 1127, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 867 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Action to recover damages for negligently causing the death of plaintiff’s intestate. On the first trial of this cause the complaint was dismissed on the ground that deceased was negligent, and that no negligence was shown on the part of the defendant. On appeal to the general term we reversed the judgment of the trial term, holding that a prima facie case of negligence had been made out against the defendant, and that the question of contributory negligence was for the jury to determine. Vide opinion, 29 N. Y. Supp. 745, 9 Misc. Rep. 279. On the second trial the jury, on all the evidence, found a verdict for the plaintiff. We are now asked to reverse the judgment entered thereon on the ground that “plaintiff failed to prove that the death of his intestate was due to any negligence on the part of defendant’s servants, and without negligence on his own part.” The evidence on the second trial presented a sharp conflict between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s witnesses as to the facts and circumstances which resulted in the killing of plaintiff’s intestate. The jury have determined the issues in favor of the plaintiff, and there is nothing in the case which would justify us in interfering with the verdict. Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Action to recover damages for negligently causing the death of plaintiff’s intestate. On the first trial of this cause the complaint was dismissed on the ground that deceased was negligent, and that no negligence was shown on the part of the defendant. On appeal to the general term we reversed the judgment of the trial term, holding that a prima facie case of negligence had been made out against the defendant, and that the question of contributory negligence was for the jury to determine. Vide opinion, 29 N. Y. Supp. 745, 9 Misc. Rep. 279. On the second trial the jury, on all the evidence, found a verdict for the plaintiff. We are now asked to reverse the judgment entered thereon on the ground that “plaintiff failed to prove that the death of his intestate was due to any negligence on the part of defendant’s servants, and without negligence on his own part.” The evidence on the second trial presented a sharp conflict between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s witnesses as to the facts and circumstances which resulted in the killing of plaintiff’s intestate. The jury have determined the issues in favor of the plaintiff, and there is nothing in the case which would justify us in interfering with the verdict. Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 N.Y.S. 1127, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowd-v-brooklyn-heights-railroad-nycityct-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack