Haggerty v. New York City Ry. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Haggerty v. New York City Ry. Co.

90 N.Y.S. 336

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 10, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 90 N.Y.S. 336 (Haggerty v. New York City 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

Haggerty v. New York City Ry. Co., 90 N.Y.S. 336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The court below gave no instructions whatsoever to the jury upon the question of either negligence or contributory negligence, but made the credibility of the witnesses the sole test of liability. The charge simply directed them, if they believed the version of the occurrence given by the plaintiff, to find in his favor, but, if they disbelieved this, and believed the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses, that then their verdict should be for the defendant. Nothing was said as to the essential facts to be established conceding the truth of the testimony, before the defendant could be held liable. For these and the further reason that the court charged that defendant’s conductor was not corroborated, this recovery cannot be permitted to stand. There was evidence tending to corroborate some of the details of the conductor’s story, and whether there was corroboration or not was a subject which should have been submitted to the jury

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

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

PER CURIAM.

The court below gave no instructions whatsoever to the jury upon the question of either negligence or contributory negligence, but made the credibility of the witnesses the sole test of liability. The charge simply directed them, if they believed the version of the occurrence given by the plaintiff, to find in his favor, but, if they disbelieved this, and believed the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses, that then their verdict should be for the defendant. Nothing was said as to the essential facts to be established conceding the truth of the testimony, before the defendant could be held liable. For these and the further reason that the court charged that defendant’s conductor was not corroborated, this recovery cannot be permitted to stand. There was evidence tending to corroborate some of the details of the conductor’s story, and whether there was corroboration or not was a subject which should have been submitted to the jury

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 N.Y.S. 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haggerty-v-new-york-city-ry-co-nyappterm-1904.