Le Blanc v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Le Blanc v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

88 N.Y.S. 150

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 5, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 88 N.Y.S. 150 (Le Blanc 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

Le Blanc v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 88 N.Y.S. 150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from recites that it was made upon a to a new exceptions taken on behalf of the defendant at the trial, and because the verdict is contrary to the evidence and contrary to the law and is-for excessive damages,” and it is impossible to say upon what precise ground the court acted. It is apparent, however, from the cases cited by the learned justice in his brief memorandum, from his rulings upon the trial, and his charge with reference to the question of contributory negligence, that he was of the opinion that the negligence of the driver, if any, was imputable to the helper, plaintiff herein, who was in the rear of the wagon at the time of the accident, and that he did not set aside the verdict as having been against the weight of evidence. It is settled that the negligence of the driver is not imputable to the plaintiff. Waters v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company (Sup.) 85 N. Y. Supp. 1120. Whether or not the helper was negligent and the defendant free from negligence were questions of fact, which were properly submitted to the jury, and' their verdict should not have been disturbed.

Order reversed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from recites that it was made upon a to a new exceptions taken on behalf of the defendant at the trial, and because the verdict is contrary to the evidence and contrary to the law and is-for excessive damages,” and it is impossible to say upon what precise ground the court acted. It is apparent, however, from the cases cited by the learned justice in his brief memorandum, from his rulings upon the trial, and his charge with reference to the question of contributory negligence, that he was of the opinion that the negligence of the driver, if any, was imputable to the helper, plaintiff herein, who was in the rear of the wagon at the time of the accident, and that he did not set aside the verdict as having been against the weight of evidence. It is settled that the negligence of the driver is not imputable to the plaintiff. Waters v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company (Sup.) 85 N. Y. Supp. 1120. Whether or not the helper was negligent and the defendant free from negligence were questions of fact, which were properly submitted to the jury, and' their verdict should not have been disturbed.

Order reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.Y.S. 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/le-blanc-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack