Keeler v. Long Island Rail Road Company

New York Court of Appeals

Keeler v. Long Island Rail Road Company

86 N.E.2d 180, 299 N.Y. 621, 1949 N.Y. LEXIS 1078

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 20, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 86 N.E.2d 180 (Keeler v. Long Island Rail Road Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keeler v. Long Island Rail Road Company, 86 N.E.2d 180, 299 N.Y. 621, 1949 N.Y. LEXIS 1078 (N.Y. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Desmond, Fuld and Bromley, JJ. Conway and Dye, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and grant a new trial upon the following grounds: (1) that there was a question of fact presented as to whether the accident was one which should reasonably have been foreseen by the defendant, (2) that there was a question of fact as to whether the covering of the third rail was adequate in view of the fact that plaintiff’s intestate was crossing from a path closely paralleling this dangerous death-dealing instrumentality alongside railroad tracks in which grass and weeds had been permitted to grow, and (3) that it was error to exclude proof of a prior similar accident within 300 feet of the place of the instant accident in which another boy had been injured under similar circumstances.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Desmond, Fuld and Bromley, JJ. Conway and Dye, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and grant a new trial upon the following grounds: (1) that there was a question of fact presented as to whether the accident was one which should reasonably have been foreseen by the defendant, (2) that there was a question of fact as to whether the covering of the third rail was adequate in view of the fact that plaintiff’s intestate was crossing from a path closely paralleling this dangerous death-dealing instrumentality alongside railroad tracks in which grass and weeds had been permitted to grow, and (3) that it was error to exclude proof of a prior similar accident within 300 feet of the place of the instant accident in which another boy had been injured under similar circumstances.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.E.2d 180, 299 N.Y. 621, 1949 N.Y. LEXIS 1078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keeler-v-long-island-rail-road-company-ny-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack