Hauff v. New York Central Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hauff v. New York Central Railroad

255 A.D. 925, 8 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5868

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 16, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 255 A.D. 925 (Hauff v. New York Central Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hauff v. New York Central Railroad, 255 A.D. 925, 8 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: In this action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate which is alleged to have resulted from defendant’s negligence, plaintiff — at the close of his ease — was nonsxiited upon the ground that his intestate, a boy fifteen years of age, was guilty of contributory negligence. We are not satisfied, from the record before us, that no “ possible hypothesis based on the evidence forbids the imputation of fault to the deceased ” (Chamberlain v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 238 N. Y. 233, 235) and are of the opinion that taking into consideration all conditions sxirrounding the accident, the question of decedent’s contributory negligence was for the jxny to determine. (Carr v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 225 N. Y. 44, 47; Schrader v. N. Y., C. & St. L. R. R. Co., 254 id. 148, 150; Crough v. New York Central R. R. Co., 260 id. 227.) All concxrr, except Crosby, J., who dissents and votes for affirmance on the ground that the record shows that the decedent was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law. (The judgment is for defendant in a railroad negligence action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: In this action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate which is alleged to have resulted from defendant’s negligence, plaintiff — at the close of his ease — was nonsxiited upon the ground that his intestate, a boy fifteen years of age, was guilty of contributory negligence. We are not satisfied, from the record before us, that no “ possible hypothesis based on the evidence forbids the imputation of fault to the deceased ” (Chamberlain v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 238 N. Y. 233, 235) and are of the opinion that taking into consideration all conditions sxirrounding the accident, the question of decedent’s contributory negligence was for the jxny to determine. (Carr v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 225 N. Y. 44, 47; Schrader v. N. Y., C. & St. L. R. R. Co., 254 id. 148, 150; Crough v. New York Central R. R. Co., 260 id. 227.) All concxrr, except Crosby, J., who dissents and votes for affirmance on the ground that the record shows that the decedent was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law. (The judgment is for defendant in a railroad negligence action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 925, 8 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hauff-v-new-york-central-railroad-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack