Huber v. Nassau Electric Railroad

22 A.D. 426, 48 N.Y.S. 38
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 1, 1897
DocketNos. 1 and 2
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 22 A.D. 426 (Huber v. Nassau Electric 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
Huber v. Nassau Electric Railroad, 22 A.D. 426, 48 N.Y.S. 38 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1897).

Opinion

Cullen, J.:

This action is brought to recover damages for injuries to the person and property, sustained in a collision between the plaintiff’s vehicle and the defendant’s car. The accident occurred at night. The plaintiff was crossing the defendant’s track in the line of an intersecting street. At such an intersection the defendant’s car had no paramount right of way. (Buhrens v. Dry Dock, etc., R. R. Co.,. 53 Hun, 571; affd. by Court of Appeals, 125 N. Y. 702; Bresky v. Third Avenue R. R. Co., 16 App. Div. 83.) The case was one for the jury, and the motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied ; but we are of opinion that the learned trial court erred in its charge. The defendant asked the court to charge that the defendant was not guilty of negligence by reason of any failure to-ring a gong at the point in question.” This the court refused, and left the question of negligence for such failure to the jury. The plaintiff testified that he saw the car 300 feet away. The only object of ringing a gong or bell is to apprise travelers of the approach of the car. As the plaintiff was already aware of the approach of the car, we cannot see that a failure to ring the gong was a material element in the case, and the jury should have been so instructed. (Daniels v. S. I. Rapid Transit Co., 125 N. Y. 407.)

The judgment appealed from should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

All concurred.

Judgments and orders reversed and new trials granted, costs to abide the event.

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

Related

In re the Estate of Schaefer
110 Misc. 628 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1920)
Mullen v. Joline
111 N.Y.S. 776 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)
Burian v. Seattle Electric Co.
67 P. 214 (Washington Supreme Court, 1901)
Hewlett v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad
63 A.D. 423 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Kleiner v. . Third Avenue R.R. Co.
56 N.E. 497 (New York Court of Appeals, 1900)
Rosenblatt v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad
26 A.D. 600 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 A.D. 426, 48 N.Y.S. 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huber-v-nassau-electric-railroad-nyappdiv-1897.