Gillmore v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Gillmore v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

116 N.Y.S. 674

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 7, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 N.Y.S. 674 (Gillmore 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

Gillmore v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 116 N.Y.S. 674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff was a passenger upon a north-bouna Sixth Avenue elevated train. At Fourteenth street he went to the door of the car, which he testifies was already open. He did not see who opened it. He testified:

“I was just about going out, when the car stopped' suddenly, and I had to grab on the jamb of the door. As I grabbed the jamb, the door loosened its fastening from underneath, and the door slammed, and I had my finger there, and the finger was jammed.”

The plaintiff was uncorroborated, and this is the only evidence of negligence on the part of defendant in the case. Such testimony has already been held inadequate by this court. Muller v. Man. Ry. Co., 48 Misc. Rep. 524, 96 N. Y. Supp. 270; Needham v. Int. R. T. Co., 48 Misc. Rep. 522, 95 N. Y. Supp. 561. On the contrary, it was testified by an uninterested witness that he saw plaintiff walk to the door and open it himself. As there is no evidence to support the judgment, it must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff was a passenger upon a north-bouna Sixth Avenue elevated train. At Fourteenth street he went to the door of the car, which he testifies was already open. He did not see who opened it. He testified:

“I was just about going out, when the car stopped' suddenly, and I had to grab on the jamb of the door. As I grabbed the jamb, the door loosened its fastening from underneath, and the door slammed, and I had my finger there, and the finger was jammed.”

The plaintiff was uncorroborated, and this is the only evidence of negligence on the part of defendant in the case. Such testimony has already been held inadequate by this court. Muller v. Man. Ry. Co., 48 Misc. Rep. 524, 96 N. Y. Supp. 270; Needham v. Int. R. T. Co., 48 Misc. Rep. 522, 95 N. Y. Supp. 561. On the contrary, it was testified by an uninterested witness that he saw plaintiff walk to the door and open it himself. As there is no evidence to support the judgment, it must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 N.Y.S. 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gillmore-v-interborough-rapid-transit-co-nyappterm-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack