Horton v. New York Central Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Horton v. New York Central Railroad

14 A.D.2d 817, 221 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8249

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 30, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.2d 817 (Horton v. New York Central Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Horton v. New York Central Railroad, 14 A.D.2d 817, 221 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In our opinion, the proof adduced was sufficient to present an issue as to whether defendant, in maintaining the premises in such manner that the door to the panel box containing the switch was customarily obstructed by another door, violated its duty to use reasonable care to furnish plaintiff a safe place to work (cf. Sano V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 282 F. 2d 936). Since there was not a complete absence of probative facts to support the jury’s finding that negligence on the part of defendant played some part in producing plaintiff’s injuries, the verdict in plaintiff’s favor should not have been set aside (cf. Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U. S. 645, 653; Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 506—508, 510). We are also of the opinion that there was ample proof to justify the jury’s finding that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and that the damages were required to be reduced substantially by reason thereof (cf. O’Neill v. Erie R. R. Co., 182 App. Div. 729; U. S. Code, tit. 45, § 53). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

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

In our opinion, the proof adduced was sufficient to present an issue as to whether defendant, in maintaining the premises in such manner that the door to the panel box containing the switch was customarily obstructed by another door, violated its duty to use reasonable care to furnish plaintiff a safe place to work (cf. Sano V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 282 F. 2d 936). Since there was not a complete absence of probative facts to support the jury’s finding that negligence on the part of defendant played some part in producing plaintiff’s injuries, the verdict in plaintiff’s favor should not have been set aside (cf. Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U. S. 645, 653; Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 506—508, 510). We are also of the opinion that there was ample proof to justify the jury’s finding that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and that the damages were required to be reduced substantially by reason thereof (cf. O’Neill v. Erie R. R. Co., 182 App. Div. 729; U. S. Code, tit. 45, § 53). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.2d 817, 221 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-new-york-central-railroad-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack