McCarthy v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Second Circuit

McCarthy v. Pennsylvania Railroad

227 F.2d 382

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 23, 1955·No. No. 108, Docket 23725·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

There was sufficient evidence to present an issue for the jury in support of plaintiff’s contention that the operator of the electric baggage truck might have chosen a safe path on the other side of the station platform, instead of the course he followed — next the train discharging and receiving passengers. See, e. g., Callaghan v. City of New York, 283 App.Div. 388, 128 N.Y.S.2d 206.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

There was sufficient evidence to present an issue for the jury in support of plaintiff’s contention that the operator of the electric baggage truck might have chosen a safe path on the other side of the station platform, instead of the course he followed — next the train discharging and receiving passengers. See, e. g., Callaghan v. City of New York, 283 App.Div. 388, 128 N.Y.S.2d 206.

Affirmed.

McCarthy v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 227 F.2d 382 (2d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

227 F.2d 382 (McCarthy v. Pennsylvania Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related