H. E. Taylor & Co. v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

H. E. Taylor & Co. v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

84 N.Y.S. 282

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 282 (H. E. Taylor & Co. 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

H. E. Taylor & Co. v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 84 N.Y.S. 282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

In this action for damages negligently done, as alleged, the plaintiff’s vehicle, going easterly along Seventy-Ninth street, by colliding with a street car of defendant going southerly upon Third avenue, the learned court excluded the municipal ordinance offered in evidence, entitled “Rules of the Road—Right of Way,” and ordaining that in all public streets and highways of this [283]*283city all vehicles going in a northerly or southerly direction shall have the right of way over any vehicle going in an easterly or westerly direction. This was reversible error. Disregard of the duly established rule of the road would not necessarily constitute contributory negligence in the driver, but, if found, it would be a circumstance within the consideration of the jurors, as every man proceeding lawfully may rightfully assume that others will conform their conduct to the requirements of statute and 'regulations having the force of statute. Knupple v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 84 N. Y. 488. Moreover, it was also error to exclude inquiry into the amount of the claim of the plaintiff’s chief witness against the defendant. A witness may be cross-examined as to facts showing his favor towards the party calling him, the extent of his own interest in the case, and his bias, although the range of examination may be limited by the trial judge. For these errors the judgment must be reversed.

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

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

MacLEAN, J.

In this action for damages negligently done, as alleged, the plaintiff’s vehicle, going easterly along Seventy-Ninth street, by colliding with a street car of defendant going southerly upon Third avenue, the learned court excluded the municipal ordinance offered in evidence, entitled “Rules of the Road—Right of Way,” and ordaining that in all public streets and highways of this [283]*283city all vehicles going in a northerly or southerly direction shall have the right of way over any vehicle going in an easterly or westerly direction. This was reversible error. Disregard of the duly established rule of the road would not necessarily constitute contributory negligence in the driver, but, if found, it would be a circumstance within the consideration of the jurors, as every man proceeding lawfully may rightfully assume that others will conform their conduct to the requirements of statute and 'regulations having the force of statute. Knupple v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 84 N. Y. 488. Moreover, it was also error to exclude inquiry into the amount of the claim of the plaintiff’s chief witness against the defendant. A witness may be cross-examined as to facts showing his favor towards the party calling him, the extent of his own interest in the case, and his bias, although the range of examination may be limited by the trial judge. For these errors the judgment must be reversed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-e-taylor-co-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack