Keefe v. New York City Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Keefe v. New York City Railway Co.

94 N.Y.S. 1150

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 26, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 94 N.Y.S. 1150 (Keefe v. New York City Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keefe v. New York City Railway Co., 94 N.Y.S. 1150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, P. J.

I can find no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. There is no evidence that the conductor gave any signal to stop or in any way communicated to the driver the plaintiff’s desire to alight, or that the driver slowed up to permit him to do so. The case is even stronger against the plaintiff than Armstrong v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 36 App. Div. 525, 55 N. Y. Supp. 498, which it much resembles. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

SCOTT, P. J.

I can find no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. There is no evidence that the conductor gave any signal to stop or in any way communicated to the driver the plaintiff’s desire to alight, or that the driver slowed up to permit him to do so. The case is even stronger against the plaintiff than Armstrong v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 36 App. Div. 525, 55 N. Y. Supp. 498, which it much resembles. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 N.Y.S. 1150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keefe-v-new-york-city-railway-co-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack