Kidd v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kidd v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

158 A.D. 904, 142 N.Y.S. 1125

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 15, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 158 A.D. 904 (Kidd v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kidd v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 158 A.D. 904, 142 N.Y.S. 1125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. On the issue of warning signals from defendant’s train the outside testimony of a large number of disinterested witnesses supports the affirmative evidence of the engineer and fireman. There was no substantial issue raised by negative testimony from observers in a position to hear and see, and who were attentive to the train’s approach. Plaintiff’s testimony was, therefore, overborne by that of defendant upon the vital issue of defendant’s signals and the want of care by plaintiff’s testator in driving his motor car upon the crossing in front of the train. Hence the motion to set aside the verdict, as against the weight of evidence, should have been granted. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

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

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. On the issue of warning signals from defendant’s train the outside testimony of a large number of disinterested witnesses supports the affirmative evidence of the engineer and fireman. There was no substantial issue raised by negative testimony from observers in a position to hear and see, and who were attentive to the train’s approach. Plaintiff’s testimony was, therefore, overborne by that of defendant upon the vital issue of defendant’s signals and the want of care by plaintiff’s testator in driving his motor car upon the crossing in front of the train. Hence the motion to set aside the verdict, as against the weight of evidence, should have been granted. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D. 904, 142 N.Y.S. 1125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kidd-v-new-york-central-hudson-river-railroad-nyappdiv-1913.