Kelleher v. Interurban St. Ry. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kelleher v. Interurban St. Ry. Co.

102 N.Y.S. 466

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 4, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 102 N.Y.S. 466 (Kelleher v. Interurban St. Ry. 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

Kelleher v. Interurban St. Ry. Co., 102 N.Y.S. 466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

BLANCHARD, J.

This is an action brought to recover for injuries received by the plaintiff by reason of a collision with the defendant’s .street car. The defendant appeals from judgment for the plaintiff, on the ground that the court erroneously charged the jury that:

[467]*467“The person first at the point of crossing has a prior right to cross, and the farthest away is obliged to pay some attention to that superior right.”

Although this charge, under other circumstances, might well have misled the jury, and thus been reversible error, an examination of the entire charge shows that, in this particular case, it did not have this result. In a subsequent part of the charge the court properly stated the law as to contributory negligence.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

BLANCHARD, J.

This is an action brought to recover for injuries received by the plaintiff by reason of a collision with the defendant’s .street car. The defendant appeals from judgment for the plaintiff, on the ground that the court erroneously charged the jury that:

[467]*467“The person first at the point of crossing has a prior right to cross, and the farthest away is obliged to pay some attention to that superior right.”

Although this charge, under other circumstances, might well have misled the jury, and thus been reversible error, an examination of the entire charge shows that, in this particular case, it did not have this result. In a subsequent part of the charge the court properly stated the law as to contributory negligence.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 N.Y.S. 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelleher-v-interurban-st-ry-co-nyappterm-1907.