Joyce v. Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburgh Railroad

29 N.Y.S. 898, 87 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 601, 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 586
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 N.Y.S. 898 (Joyce v. Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburgh 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
Joyce v. Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburgh Railroad, 29 N.Y.S. 898, 87 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 601, 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 586 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Under the ruling in Bailey v. Railroad Co., 139 N. Y. 302, 34 N. E. 918, the duty rested upon the defendant to cause a proper inspection of the cars before they left Oswego. There was evidence tending to show that the appliances for coupling were defective; that there was an improper play of the drawhead, of from one to three inches. Whether this contributed to the injury, and whether it existed when the train left Oswego, and might, by [899]*899proper inspection, have been discovered and remedied, were questions of fact, for the jury. So was the question of contributory negligence. See Goodrich v. Railroad Co., 116 N. Y. 398, 404, 22 N. E. 397; Ellis v. Railroad Co., 95 N. Y. 546. We think the case should have been submitted to the jury. All concur.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered; costs to abide the event.

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

Related

Joyce v. Rome, W. & O. Railroad
36 N.Y.S. 731 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 N.Y.S. 898, 87 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 601, 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joyce-v-rome-watertown-ogdensburgh-railroad-nysupct-1894.