Fatum v. Brooklyn, Q. C. &, S. R. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fatum v. Brooklyn, Q. C. &, S. R. Co.

149 N.Y.S. 1080, 165 A.D. 924, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7968

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 6, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 149 N.Y.S. 1080 (Fatum v. Brooklyn, Q. C. &, S. R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fatum v. Brooklyn, Q. C. &, S. R. Co., 149 N.Y.S. 1080, 165 A.D. 924, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7968 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issue of fact, whether or not plaintiff had hold of the car before it started, was sent to the jury by the original charge, and by an instruction following the words of a request to that effect by defendant’s counsel. The court also left to the jury to find whether the conductor in starting the car was in the exercise of reasonable care. After the issue whether plaintiff had tried to board a car at rest, or one already starting, had thus been [1081]*1081clearly presented to the jury, if defendant’s counsel wished a further charge on the point of contributory negligence, he might have made an appropriate request for such instruction. In the absence of such request, no error appears. We cannot say that the verdict of §1,250 is excessive. The judgment and order of the County Court of Queens County are therefore unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The issue of fact, whether or not plaintiff had hold of the car before it started, was sent to the jury by the original charge, and by an instruction following the words of a request to that effect by defendant’s counsel. The court also left to the jury to find whether the conductor in starting the car was in the exercise of reasonable care. After the issue whether plaintiff had tried to board a car at rest, or one already starting, had thus been [1081]*1081clearly presented to the jury, if defendant’s counsel wished a further charge on the point of contributory negligence, he might have made an appropriate request for such instruction. In the absence of such request, no error appears. We cannot say that the verdict of §1,250 is excessive. The judgment and order of the County Court of Queens County are therefore unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 N.Y.S. 1080, 165 A.D. 924, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fatum-v-brooklyn-q-c-s-r-co-nyappdiv-1914.