Edelman v. Interurban Steet Railway Co.

95 N.Y.S. 527
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedOctober 27, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 N.Y.S. 527 (Edelman v. Interurban Steet 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
Edelman v. Interurban Steet Railway Co., 95 N.Y.S. 527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

The plaintiff’s case being founded upon negligence in the starting of the car while he was attempting to alight, after it had come to a stop for the purpose, and evidence having been given for the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff was injured through an attempt [528]*528to leave the car while still in motion, it was error for the court to refuse to charge, when requested, “that if they [the jury]' find that the car was moving, however slowly, at the time the plaintiff attempted to alight therefrom, their verdict must be for the defendant.” Cunningham v. Railroad Co., 31 Misc. 471, 64 N. Y. Supp. 350; Coleman v. Railroad Co., 82 App. Div. 435, 81 N. Y. Supp. 836. This proposition was not covered by the main charge (see Dambmann v. Railway Co., 180 N. Y. 384, 73 N. E. 59), and the ruling was clearly prejudicial.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

Related

Horn v. Stuyvesant
100 N.Y.S. 547 (New York Supreme Court, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 N.Y.S. 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edelman-v-interurban-steet-railway-co-nyappterm-1905.