Jones v. New York Central Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. New York Central Railroad

4 A.D.2d 967, 168 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3845

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 967 (Jones 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

Jones v. New York Central Railroad, 4 A.D.2d 967, 168 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from a judgment in favor of respondent for $275,000 entered after trial before an Official Referee to whom the issues had been referred for hearing and determination. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Beldock, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Wenzel, J., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: In our opinion the evidence was insufficient to sustain the findings (1) that respondent, by reason of intoxication and sickness, was unable to care for himself or to travel with safety, (2) that appellant had notice of that fact, (3) that appellant was guilty of negligence and (4) that respondent was not guilty of contributory negligence. Respondent was not relieved by his voluntary intoxication from using such care as he was capable of using. (Fardette v. New York & Stamford Ry. Co., 190 App. Div. 543, 547.)

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from a judgment in favor of respondent for $275,000 entered after trial before an Official Referee to whom the issues had been referred for hearing and determination. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Beldock, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Wenzel, J., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: In our opinion the evidence was insufficient to sustain the findings (1) that respondent, by reason of intoxication and sickness, was unable to care for himself or to travel with safety, (2) that appellant had notice of that fact, (3) that appellant was guilty of negligence and (4) that respondent was not guilty of contributory negligence. Respondent was not relieved by his voluntary intoxication from using such care as he was capable of using. (Fardette v. New York & Stamford Ry. Co., 190 App. Div. 543, 547.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 967, 168 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-new-york-central-railroad-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack