Goldberg v. Interurban St. Ry. Co.

90 N.Y.S. 347
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedNovember 10, 1904
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 90 N.Y.S. 347 (Goldberg v. Interurban St. Ry. 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
Goldberg v. Interurban St. Ry. Co., 90 N.Y.S. 347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Opinion

FITZGERALD, J.

Plaintiff’s injuries were occasioned by his stepping into an unguarded excavation some distance away from the car, from which he had, with entire safety, alighted. According to his own testimony, he had taken two or three steps before falling. It would be unreasonable to hold either that the fire, which from unknown causes had broken out in the car, or the action of the conductor, upon its discovery, in stopping the car and letting the passengers alight, were, except in a remote degree, even contributory to the occurrence. A careful consideration of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that no breach of duty upon [348]*348the part of the defendant was established, and justice requires that the verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff should not be allowed to stand.

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

Garcia v. Connecticut Transit Co., No. 400885 (Jan. 21, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 461 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Blye v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority
124 A.D.2d 106 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 N.Y.S. 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-interurban-st-ry-co-nyappterm-1904.