Hedenberg v. Manhattan Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hedenberg v. Manhattan Railway Co.

91 N.Y.S. 68

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 7, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 91 N.Y.S. 68 (Hedenberg v. Manhattan 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

Hedenberg v. Manhattan Railway Co., 91 N.Y.S. 68 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

The plaintiff was properly nonsuited. His injury resulted from his stepping upon a nail in a plank lying beneath the defendant’s station and upon the sidewalk, and, assuming that the plank was placed there by the defendant in the course of the. construction of some steps, as the plaintiff contends, the liability of the defendant would depend upon proof that this plank was permitted to remain upon the sidewalk beyond a reasonable time. For all that appears, the condition had existed but a moment, yet for a reasonable use of the sidewalk the defendant incurred no liability. O’Reilly v. L. I. R. Co., 4 App. Div. 139,141, 38 N. Y. Supp. 779; s. c. 15 App. Div. 79, 44 N. Y. Supp. 264.

The judgment erroneously directs a dismissal upon the merits, however, and, so far, must be modified.

Judgment modified by striking out direction for a dismissal upon the merits, and, as modified, affirmed, .without costs. All concur.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

The plaintiff was properly nonsuited. His injury resulted from his stepping upon a nail in a plank lying beneath the defendant’s station and upon the sidewalk, and, assuming that the plank was placed there by the defendant in the course of the. construction of some steps, as the plaintiff contends, the liability of the defendant would depend upon proof that this plank was permitted to remain upon the sidewalk beyond a reasonable time. For all that appears, the condition had existed but a moment, yet for a reasonable use of the sidewalk the defendant incurred no liability. O’Reilly v. L. I. R. Co., 4 App. Div. 139,141, 38 N. Y. Supp. 779; s. c. 15 App. Div. 79, 44 N. Y. Supp. 264.

The judgment erroneously directs a dismissal upon the merits, however, and, so far, must be modified.

Judgment modified by striking out direction for a dismissal upon the merits, and, as modified, affirmed, .without costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.Y.S. 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hedenberg-v-manhattan-railway-co-nyappterm-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack