Johnson v. City of Amsterdam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. City of Amsterdam

245 A.D. 894

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D. 894 (Johnson v. City of Amsterdam) 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

Johnson v. City of Amsterdam, 245 A.D. 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from three judgments against the city of Amsterdam. Two were for personal injuries received by passengers riding in an automobile, in the night time, that was in collision with a street sweeper belonging to the defendant and operated by its agents. The third judgment was in favor of the owner and driver, for damage to the automobile and for personal injuries. The evidence justifies a finding that the sweeper, without lights, was being driven along a street on a dark, rainy Mght, and that the accident would not have happened had the tail light been lit. The issue as to contributory negligence was for the jury. The section of the city charter as to notice of defects or obstructions in the city streets did not apply. Judgments and orders unammously affirmed, with costs in one action. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

Appeals from three judgments against the city of Amsterdam. Two were for personal injuries received by passengers riding in an automobile, in the night time, that was in collision with a street sweeper belonging to the defendant and operated by its agents. The third judgment was in favor of the owner and driver, for damage to the automobile and for personal injuries. The evidence justifies a finding that the sweeper, without lights, was being driven along a street on a dark, rainy Mght, and that the accident would not have happened had the tail light been lit. The issue as to contributory negligence was for the jury. The section of the city charter as to notice of defects or obstructions in the city streets did not apply. Judgments and orders unammously affirmed, with costs in one action. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D. 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-city-of-amsterdam-nyappdiv-1935.