Driggs v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Driggs v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

49 Misc. 621, 96 N.Y.S. 1031

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 15, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 49 Misc. 621 (Driggs v. Interborough Rapid Transit 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

Driggs v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 49 Misc. 621, 96 N.Y.S. 1031 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The cause of action for negligence was supported by evidence that the hinge of the gate upon the car was smeared with grease; that the condition was an unusual ■one, hence not to be guarded against by passengers, and that ■the presence of this grease was the cause of the injury to the plaintiff's dress. In view of the fact that the gate was immediately controlled by the defendant’s servant, stationed by it, the inference of notice of the condition was readily permissible ; and the omission of reasonable care in thus maintaining the car, for the purpose for which passengers were invited to use it, was sufficiently established. The award of damages for the injury to the garment was well within the-proof.

Present: Scott, Bischoff and MacLean, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The cause of action for negligence was supported by evidence that the hinge of the gate upon the car was smeared with grease; that the condition was an unusual ■one, hence not to be guarded against by passengers, and that ■the presence of this grease was the cause of the injury to the plaintiff's dress. In view of the fact that the gate was immediately controlled by the defendant’s servant, stationed by it, the inference of notice of the condition was readily permissible ; and the omission of reasonable care in thus maintaining the car, for the purpose for which passengers were invited to use it, was sufficiently established. The award of damages for the injury to the garment was well within the-proof.

Present: Scott, Bischoff and MacLean, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Misc. 621, 96 N.Y.S. 1031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/driggs-v-interborough-rapid-transit-co-nyappterm-1905.