Ganz v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ganz v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

84 N.Y.S. 579

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 6, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 579 (Ganz v. Metropolitan 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

Ganz v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 84 N.Y.S. 579 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

BLANCHARD, J.

• This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries. . Upon the evidence it is at least doubtful whether the plaintiff was injured in the manner alleged in the complaint and as testified to by him. The testimony respecting this material issue was conflicting, and was properly submitted to the jury. The plaintiff testified that the gate of the car was not fully open for the reception of passengers, that it was opened “a little bit,” and that “if I had seen the position that gate was in I never would have put my hand there to get hurt.” This being so, it was for the jury to decide whether the plaintiff used reasonable care in attempting to board the car, under such circumstances. The plaintiff’s exceptions are without merit.

The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

BLANCHARD, J.

• This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries. . Upon the evidence it is at least doubtful whether the plaintiff was injured in the manner alleged in the complaint and as testified to by him. The testimony respecting this material issue was conflicting, and was properly submitted to the jury. The plaintiff testified that the gate of the car was not fully open for the reception of passengers, that it was opened “a little bit,” and that “if I had seen the position that gate was in I never would have put my hand there to get hurt.” This being so, it was for the jury to decide whether the plaintiff used reasonable care in attempting to board the car, under such circumstances. The plaintiff’s exceptions are without merit.

The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ganz-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1903.