Kuhlman v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

29 Misc. 773, 60 N.Y.S. 989
CourtCity of New York Municipal Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1899
StatusPublished

This text of 29 Misc. 773 (Kuhlman v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kuhlman v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 29 Misc. 773, 60 N.Y.S. 989 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1899).

Opinion

Fitzsimons, Ob. J.

The only material point presented by this appeal is the refusal to charge the request, made by the defendant’s counsel, that If the jury believe that the defendant’s car was in motion at the time the plaintiff attempted to get off, the verdict must be for the defendant.”

The request does not distinguish between rapid and slow motion. The court charged: “ In this case it is for you to say whether the act of the plaintiff, in attempting to get off the car at the time of the accident, was negligence.” At least one of the defendant’s witnesses swears the car was moving slowly. The court’s refusal to charge was not error, under Kelly v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 25 App. Div. 604, but seems warranted by that case. See, also, Filer v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 47. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

McCarthy, J., concurs.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

H.M. Filer v. . New York Central R.R. Co.
49 N.Y. 47 (New York Court of Appeals, 1872)
Kelly v. Third Avenue Railroad
25 A.D. 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 Misc. 773, 60 N.Y.S. 989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuhlman-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-nynyccityct-1899.