Gregorio v. New York City Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Gregorio v. New York City Railway Co.

49 Misc. 249, 97 N.Y.S. 373

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 Misc. 249 (Gregorio v. New York City 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

Gregorio v. New York City Railway Co., 49 Misc. 249, 97 N.Y.S. 373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Scott, J.

The evidence justified a finding that plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant’s cars; that the car stopped at or near the intersection of Third avenue and Eortysixth street; that it was stopped in response to a signal given by some" one; that plaintiff started to alight and, before she had safely done so, the car started up and she was thrown down. It did not appear that the conductor saw her or knew that she was alighting, nor did it appear that a signal to start was given by the conductor or any one. ' These facts, in our opinion, established a prima facie case of negligence on defendant’s part. “ When a street surface car has come to a full standstill, reasonable care in its operation demands that it shall not be started without some effort on the part of the conductor or motorman to determine whether this may be done with safety to passengers or intending passengers, and the question of negligence is one for the jury.” Bessenger v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 78 App. Div. 32.

In our opinion, the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and it was error to dismiss the complaint.

Blanchaed and Dowling, JJ., concur.

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

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

Scott, J.

The evidence justified a finding that plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant’s cars; that the car stopped at or near the intersection of Third avenue and Eortysixth street; that it was stopped in response to a signal given by some" one; that plaintiff started to alight and, before she had safely done so, the car started up and she was thrown down. It did not appear that the conductor saw her or knew that she was alighting, nor did it appear that a signal to start was given by the conductor or any one. ' These facts, in our opinion, established a prima facie case of negligence on defendant’s part. “ When a street surface car has come to a full standstill, reasonable care in its operation demands that it shall not be started without some effort on the part of the conductor or motorman to determine whether this may be done with safety to passengers or intending passengers, and the question of negligence is one for the jury.” Bessenger v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 78 App. Div. 32.

In our opinion, the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and it was error to dismiss the complaint.

Blanchaed and Dowling, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Misc. 249, 97 N.Y.S. 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregorio-v-new-york-city-railway-co-nyappterm-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack