Jager v. Coney Island & B. Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Jager v. Coney Island & B. Railroad

32 N.Y.S. 304, 84 Hun 307, 91 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 307, 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 539

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 N.Y.S. 304 (Jager v. Coney Island & B. 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

Jager v. Coney Island & B. Railroad, 32 N.Y.S. 304, 84 Hun 307, 91 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 307, 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 539 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PRATT, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered at circuit in a negligence case. The plaintiff was injured on defendant’s railroad track, about 150 feet south of what is called “Manhattan Crossing,” by a car going from Brooklyn to Coney Island. The negligence, it was claimed, which caused the injury, consisted (1) in a high rate of speed on a public highway; (2) the absence of signals; and (3) [305]*305the absence of the motorman from his post of duty. There was no difficulty in seeing both ways upon the track, a long distance. In fact, the plaintiff did see the car approaching, for a long distance, and in ample time to get out of the way of it; and, if he had stood still where he was when he saw the car coming, he would not have been injured, but he says when the car got near him he jumped in front of the car. This testimony precluded any inference of negligence in not stopping the car, or in the motorman not being at his post. In fact, the proof was that the motorman was at his post all the time, and a second or two before the accident he had turned on the power, to increase the speed. The plaintiff was traveling in a direction to meet the car, and had seen it in. plain view, coming towards him, for a long distance. Indeed, he saw it so far ahead of him that he took it for a man with a lantern, which does away with all necessity for signals, were the same required. The criticism that the motorman was seen, before the accident, leaning with his back against the door, is not only puerile, but it is false, if it refers to the moment before the accident. It is apparent from the facts in evidence, putting the most favorable construction on them for the plaintiff, that no negligence whatever was shown on the part of the defendant, but that the sole cause of the accident was want of care on the part of the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

PRATT, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered at circuit in a negligence case. The plaintiff was injured on defendant’s railroad track, about 150 feet south of what is called “Manhattan Crossing,” by a car going from Brooklyn to Coney Island. The negligence, it was claimed, which caused the injury, consisted (1) in a high rate of speed on a public highway; (2) the absence of signals; and (3) [305]*305the absence of the motorman from his post of duty. There was no difficulty in seeing both ways upon the track, a long distance. In fact, the plaintiff did see the car approaching, for a long distance, and in ample time to get out of the way of it; and, if he had stood still where he was when he saw the car coming, he would not have been injured, but he says when the car got near him he jumped in front of the car. This testimony precluded any inference of negligence in not stopping the car, or in the motorman not being at his post. In fact, the proof was that the motorman was at his post all the time, and a second or two before the accident he had turned on the power, to increase the speed. The plaintiff was traveling in a direction to meet the car, and had seen it in. plain view, coming towards him, for a long distance. Indeed, he saw it so far ahead of him that he took it for a man with a lantern, which does away with all necessity for signals, were the same required. The criticism that the motorman was seen, before the accident, leaning with his back against the door, is not only puerile, but it is false, if it refers to the moment before the accident. It is apparent from the facts in evidence, putting the most favorable construction on them for the plaintiff, that no negligence whatever was shown on the part of the defendant, but that the sole cause of the accident was want of care on the part of the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.Y.S. 304, 84 Hun 307, 91 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 307, 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jager-v-coney-island-b-railroad-nysupct-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack