Klein v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Klein v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

55 Misc. 211, 105 N.Y.S. 95

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 Misc. 211 (Klein v. Interurban Street 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

Klein v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 55 Misc. 211, 105 N.Y.S. 95 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The substance of the plaintiff’s complaint is that, in attempting to board one of defendant’s ears at Avenue B and Second street, after the same had come to a standstill, before he had a reasonable opportunity to do so, the car was started and he was thrown to the ground, receiving the injuries complained of. The defendant, having no report of the accident, offered no evidence. The plaintiff’s testimony clearly supported the allegations of his complaint, and he was corroborated by one apparently disinterested witness. There was a discrepancy between the testimony of the plaintiff and one of his witnesses as to the part of the car on which the conductor stood when the accident happened; but, as it occurred in November, 1902, and the case was not tried until March, 1907, a lapse of over four years, that fully accounts for defects in the memory of the witnesses, even if such discrepancy was material, which it was not. The jury found for the defendant. A careful examination of the record does not disclose the slightest reason for the verdict rendered. The testimony of the plaintiff and his corroborating witness was fair, unimpeached, uneontradicted and their narration of the occurrence clear and convincing and its truth highly probable. The verdict is against the evidence and unwarranted. This conclusion makes it unnecessary to discuss the alleged error in the judge’s charge.

Present: Gildeesleeve, SeabuRy and Platzek, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Per Curiam.

The substance of the plaintiff’s complaint is that, in attempting to board one of defendant’s ears at Avenue B and Second street, after the same had come to a standstill, before he had a reasonable opportunity to do so, the car was started and he was thrown to the ground, receiving the injuries complained of. The defendant, having no report of the accident, offered no evidence. The plaintiff’s testimony clearly supported the allegations of his complaint, and he was corroborated by one apparently disinterested witness. There was a discrepancy between the testimony of the plaintiff and one of his witnesses as to the part of the car on which the conductor stood when the accident happened; but, as it occurred in November, 1902, and the case was not tried until March, 1907, a lapse of over four years, that fully accounts for defects in the memory of the witnesses, even if such discrepancy was material, which it was not. The jury found for the defendant. A careful examination of the record does not disclose the slightest reason for the verdict rendered. The testimony of the plaintiff and his corroborating witness was fair, unimpeached, uneontradicted and their narration of the occurrence clear and convincing and its truth highly probable. The verdict is against the evidence and unwarranted. This conclusion makes it unnecessary to discuss the alleged error in the judge’s charge.

Present: Gildeesleeve, SeabuRy and Platzek, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 Misc. 211, 105 N.Y.S. 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack