Hamilton v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

13 A. 29, 50 N.J.L. 263, 1888 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 101
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 15, 1888·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought by an administratrix under the statute relating to deaths caused by negligence. The deceased was crossing the track of the defendant’s road and was killed by a passing train.

[264]*264We think, on the proofs exhibited at the trial, that there should have been a non-suit. On the plaintiff^ own case it was indisputable that the accident was*, in fact, occasioned by want of care by the deceased in crossing the road. Her own witness testified in distinct terms, and the statement was repeated, that the deceased walked upon the track without looking either up or down it. If she had looked she would have seen the train in plain sight. It cannot be claimed that she was thrown off her guard by her attention being attracted by any object. There is nothing in the case on which to found such an inference. The testimony referred to is not either explained or contradicted. There is no legal foundation for this verdict.

The rule must be made absolute.

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

Hamilton v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad, 13 A. 29, 50 N.J.L. 263, 1888 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 101 (N.J. 1888).

13 A. 29 (Hamilton v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Magdalera v. Colvin
D. Nevada, 2025
Moore v. Palen
36 N.W.2d 540 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1949)
Howard v. Northern Central Railway Co.
1 N.Y.S. 528 (New York Supreme Court, 1888)