Hollingsworth v. Long Island Railroad

36 N.Y.S. 1126, 98 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 641, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 903
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 2, 1895
StatusPublished

This text of 36 N.Y.S. 1126 (Hollingsworth v. Long Island 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
Hollingsworth v. Long Island Railroad, 36 N.Y.S. 1126, 98 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 641, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 903 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Opinion

PRATT, J.

The case went to the jury on the point as to whether the injury was caused by the defective brake. oThe verdict establishes that to be the fact, and from that we think defendant’s liability results. We are not able to ■agree with defendant’s counsel that the railroad company owed no duty to the plaintiff in respect to that brake. The perils of his occupation which he assumed did not include defective rolling gear of which he had no notice. The court correctly held that concurring negligence of a coemployé did not relieve defendants from responsibility. Lilly v. Railroad Co., 107 N. Y. 566, 14 N. E. 503. The verdict was not excessive. Judgment affirmed, with costs. BROWN, J., dissents without opinion.

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

Related

Lilly v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.
14 N.E. 503 (New York Court of Appeals, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 N.Y.S. 1126, 98 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 641, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollingsworth-v-long-island-railroad-nysupct-1895.