Liebowitz v. Long Island Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liebowitz v. Long Island Railroad

172 A.D. 949, 157 N.Y.S. 1132

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D. 949 (Liebowitz v. Long Island 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

Liebowitz v. Long Island Railroad, 172 A.D. 949, 157 N.Y.S. 1132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Laughlin, J.:

The cause of action as alleged is on an implied license, which was not proved, but the case was left to the jury upon the claim of an express invitation, which was not alleged. I am also of opinion that the findings of the jury that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence, and that the defendant was negligent, are against the weight of the evidence. The judgment and order appealed from should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Clarke, P. J., concurred; Smith, J., concurred, being further of the opinion that the proof of the defendant’s negligence was not sufficient to go to the jury; Dowling and Davis, JJ., dissented and voted for affirmance. Judgment and order 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

Laughlin, J.:

The cause of action as alleged is on an implied license, which was not proved, but the case was left to the jury upon the claim of an express invitation, which was not alleged. I am also of opinion that the findings of the jury that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence, and that the defendant was negligent, are against the weight of the evidence. The judgment and order appealed from should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Clarke, P. J., concurred; Smith, J., concurred, being further of the opinion that the proof of the defendant’s negligence was not sufficient to go to the jury; Dowling and Davis, JJ., dissented and voted for affirmance. Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D. 949, 157 N.Y.S. 1132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liebowitz-v-long-island-railroad-nyappdiv-1916.