Keeler v. Long Island Rail Road Company

86 N.E.2d 180, 299 N.Y. 621, 1949 N.Y. LEXIS 1078
New York Court of Appeals·Decided April 20, 1949·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

86 N.E.2d 180 (Keeler v. Long Island Rail Road Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Waters v. Long Island Rail Road
52 Misc. 2d 515 (New York Supreme Court, 1966)
Lederman v. New York City Transit Authority
36 Misc. 2d 571 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Scholl v. New York Central Railroad
2 A.D.2d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)