Gombert v. . Niagara Junction Railway Company

New York Court of Appeals

Gombert v. . Niagara Junction Railway Company

112 N.E. 1068, 217 N.Y. 635, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1391

DecidedFebruary 4, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 112 N.E. 1068 (Gombert v. . Niagara Junction Railway Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gombert v. . Niagara Junction Railway Company, 112 N.E. 1068, 217 N.Y. 635, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1391 (N.Y. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

*636 Per Curiam.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff recovered a verdict upon which judgment was entered. Upon appeal the Appellate Division reversed the judgment and dismissed the complaint “upon the merits,” and by a divided court held ‘ ‘ That the uncontradicted evidence shows that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.” It is not necessary to set forth the facts or to point out the inferences which a jury would have been justified in drawing from them. We think it is sufficient to announce the conclusion at which we have arrived, viz., that upon the facts proved the issue as to contributory negligence was for the jury.

The Appellate Division held the judgment erroneous as a matter of law, and have not yet passed upon the weight of the evidence. The case must, therefore, be remitted to the Appellate Division for its consideration of the facts. (Junkermann v. Tilyou Realty Co., 213 N. Y. 404, 410.)

The judgment should be reversed, with costs to the appellant in this .court, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division for its consideration of the facts.

Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Seabury and Pound, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

*636 Per Curiam.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff recovered a verdict upon which judgment was entered. Upon appeal the Appellate Division reversed the judgment and dismissed the complaint “upon the merits,” and by a divided court held ‘ ‘ That the uncontradicted evidence shows that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.” It is not necessary to set forth the facts or to point out the inferences which a jury would have been justified in drawing from them. We think it is sufficient to announce the conclusion at which we have arrived, viz., that upon the facts proved the issue as to contributory negligence was for the jury.

The Appellate Division held the judgment erroneous as a matter of law, and have not yet passed upon the weight of the evidence. The case must, therefore, be remitted to the Appellate Division for its consideration of the facts. (Junkermann v. Tilyou Realty Co., 213 N. Y. 404, 410.)

The judgment should be reversed, with costs to the appellant in this .court, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division for its consideration of the facts.

Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Seabury and Pound, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 N.E. 1068, 217 N.Y. 635, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gombert-v-niagara-junction-railway-company-ny-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack