Hill v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hill v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

30 Misc. 440, 62 N.Y.S. 596

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 30 Misc. 440 (Hill v. Metropolitan Street 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

Hill v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 30 Misc. 440, 62 N.Y.S. 596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLean, J.

The plaintiff, while driving westerly along- the west-bound track of defendant’s line, on Twenty-third street, between 10 and 11 o’clock at night, was overtaken by one of defendant’s cars which struck his wagon, injuring it and the horse, and for these injuries the plaintiff brought this action. According to his own testimony, he had driven along that track for some 300 feet, was familiar with the locality and knew that cars were passing and repassing there very frequently. His use of the track was liable to a lawful interruption from a party having the right to an unobstructed way, and exercising that right for the public good in part. It was his duty not only to avoid collision, but also to cause no needless delay to the defendant, and he might not wait to hear a signal of the approach of a car, but he had needs at intervals to look backward for it. Adolph v. Central Park, N. & E. R. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 530, 537. This he did not do, and so the judgment in his favor must be reversed.

Ereedmaet, P. J., concurs; Leveettritt, J., taking no part.

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

MacLean, J.

The plaintiff, while driving westerly along- the west-bound track of defendant’s line, on Twenty-third street, between 10 and 11 o’clock at night, was overtaken by one of defendant’s cars which struck his wagon, injuring it and the horse, and for these injuries the plaintiff brought this action. According to his own testimony, he had driven along that track for some 300 feet, was familiar with the locality and knew that cars were passing and repassing there very frequently. His use of the track was liable to a lawful interruption from a party having the right to an unobstructed way, and exercising that right for the public good in part. It was his duty not only to avoid collision, but also to cause no needless delay to the defendant, and he might not wait to hear a signal of the approach of a car, but he had needs at intervals to look backward for it. Adolph v. Central Park, N. & E. R. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 530, 537. This he did not do, and so the judgment in his favor must be reversed.

Ereedmaet, P. J., concurs; Leveettritt, J., taking no part.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Misc. 440, 62 N.Y.S. 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack