Hebron v. New York City Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hebron v. New York City Railway Co.

94 N.Y.S. 341

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 N.Y.S. 341 (Hebron 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

Hebron v. New York City Railway Co., 94 N.Y.S. 341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, P. J.

Plaintiff sues for injuries to himself and his cab, resulting from a collision with one of the defendant’s cars. The evidence shows that plaintiff was driving a hansom cab westwardly on Thirty-Eighth street at a slow pace. As he approached Third avenue, one of defendant’s cars was coming north at a great and unusual rate of speed, owing to the fact that there had been a de[342]*342tention on the road. The evidence fully justified a finding of negligence on the part of defendant, but wholly failed to show freedom from contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. Indeed, his own evidence showed plainly that he exercised no care or caution whatever. After much prodding by court and counsel, he did say that before he started to cross the tracks he looked south to see if any car was approaching and did not see any, but he was entirely unable to say how far down the avenue he looked. The fact undoubtedly is that he did not look at all, for if he had looked down no more than half a block he could not have failed to see the car. Unless the rule that there must be proof of freedom from contributory negligence on plaintiff’s part is to be disregarded, this judgment cannot stand.

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

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

SCOTT, P. J.

Plaintiff sues for injuries to himself and his cab, resulting from a collision with one of the defendant’s cars. The evidence shows that plaintiff was driving a hansom cab westwardly on Thirty-Eighth street at a slow pace. As he approached Third avenue, one of defendant’s cars was coming north at a great and unusual rate of speed, owing to the fact that there had been a de[342]*342tention on the road. The evidence fully justified a finding of negligence on the part of defendant, but wholly failed to show freedom from contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. Indeed, his own evidence showed plainly that he exercised no care or caution whatever. After much prodding by court and counsel, he did say that before he started to cross the tracks he looked south to see if any car was approaching and did not see any, but he was entirely unable to say how far down the avenue he looked. The fact undoubtedly is that he did not look at all, for if he had looked down no more than half a block he could not have failed to see the car. Unless the rule that there must be proof of freedom from contributory negligence on plaintiff’s part is to be disregarded, this judgment cannot stand.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 N.Y.S. 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hebron-v-new-york-city-railway-co-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack