Hirsch v. New York & Greenwood Lake Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Hirsch v. New York & Greenwood Lake Railroad

6 N.Y.S. 162, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 156, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 466

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 2, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 N.Y.S. 162 (Hirsch v. New York & Greenwood Lake Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hirsch v. New York & Greenwood Lake Railroad, 6 N.Y.S. 162, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 156, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 466 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman, J.

The similitude between this case and the ease of Terry v. Jewett, 78 S". Y. 338, justifies the quotation of that case as an authority against the defendant on this appeal. In both cases the injured person undertook to cross a track between the station-house and thfc train he desired to enter, and in both cases the injury resulted from the propulsion of a train between the passenger train and the station upon the intervening track, occupying the space over which the passenger was required to pass. In the ease cited the court held the act of the engineer to be grossly negligent, and that it was not negligent as a matter of law for the injured person to attempt to cross the track without looking, but that the question of contributive negligence was one of fact for the jury. Here the engineer of the incoming train, which injured the plaintiff, ran his engine between the passenger train and the waiting-room at a time when passengers might desire to pass from the platform to the train, and when they had a right to believe they might do so witii safety, and, under the doctrine inculcated by the Terry Case, that was an act of gross negligence. We think the ease was properly submitted to the jury, and that the appeal is without merit. The j udgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Dykman, J.

The similitude between this case and the ease of Terry v. Jewett, 78 S". Y. 338, justifies the quotation of that case as an authority against the defendant on this appeal. In both cases the injured person undertook to cross a track between the station-house and thfc train he desired to enter, and in both cases the injury resulted from the propulsion of a train between the passenger train and the station upon the intervening track, occupying the space over which the passenger was required to pass. In the ease cited the court held the act of the engineer to be grossly negligent, and that it was not negligent as a matter of law for the injured person to attempt to cross the track without looking, but that the question of contributive negligence was one of fact for the jury. Here the engineer of the incoming train, which injured the plaintiff, ran his engine between the passenger train and the waiting-room at a time when passengers might desire to pass from the platform to the train, and when they had a right to believe they might do so witii safety, and, under the doctrine inculcated by the Terry Case, that was an act of gross negligence. We think the ease was properly submitted to the jury, and that the appeal is without merit. The j udgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 N.Y.S. 162, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 156, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirsch-v-new-york-greenwood-lake-railroad-nysupct-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack