Dunford v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Dunford v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

84 N.Y.S. 865

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 18, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 865 (Dunford v. Interurban 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

Dunford v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 84 N.Y.S. 865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

BLANCHARD, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries received by him as the result of a collision between a wagon he was driving and one of the defendant’s cars. It appears that the plaintiff was disabled for a week and two days, and then went to work, and that while driving his horse the.horse became frightened and ran away, and the plaintiff jumped. The plaintiff then testified that he worked the two days following. He was then asked;

“Q. And then did you do any work? Defendant’s Attorney: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, not having been shown to be the result of this accident. (Objection overruled. Exception taken.) A. No, sir.”

There is no proof that plaintiff was hurt as the result of his jumping from his wagon when his horse ran away, and the court charged the jury that the plaintiff could only recover for “the direct conse[866]*866quences” of the accident. This being the only assignment of error, we do not consider that-the appellant has been prejudiced. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

BLANCHARD, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries received by him as the result of a collision between a wagon he was driving and one of the defendant’s cars. It appears that the plaintiff was disabled for a week and two days, and then went to work, and that while driving his horse the.horse became frightened and ran away, and the plaintiff jumped. The plaintiff then testified that he worked the two days following. He was then asked;

“Q. And then did you do any work? Defendant’s Attorney: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, not having been shown to be the result of this accident. (Objection overruled. Exception taken.) A. No, sir.”

There is no proof that plaintiff was hurt as the result of his jumping from his wagon when his horse ran away, and the court charged the jury that the plaintiff could only recover for “the direct conse[866]*866quences” of the accident. This being the only assignment of error, we do not consider that-the appellant has been prejudiced. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunford-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1903.