McNally v. Samuel Appel Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McNally v. Samuel Appel Co.

189 A.D. 918

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 15, 1919·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The evidence amply justified the finding of negligence upon the part of the appellant. Plaintiff had the right, in a measure at least, to rely on the presumption that the driver of the automobile would obey the law and would not enter the prohibited zone within eight feet of the street car, and if the plaintiff had seen the approaching automobile he still could have relied on the presumption that it was slowing down with the intention of stopping in obedience to the law. (Code of Ordinances of the City of New York, chap. 24, art. 2, § 17, subd. 3; Crombie v. O’Brien, 178 App. Div. 807.) Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Mills, Rich, Putnam, Kelly and Jaycox, JJ.

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

The evidence amply justified the finding of negligence upon the part of the appellant. Plaintiff had the right, in a measure at least, to rely on the presumption that the driver of the automobile would obey the law and would not enter the prohibited zone within eight feet of the street car, and if the plaintiff had seen the approaching automobile he still could have relied on the presumption that it was slowing down with the intention of stopping in obedience to the law. (Code of Ordinances of the City of New York, chap. 24, art. 2, § 17, subd. 3; Crombie v. O’Brien, 178 App. Div. 807.) Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Mills, Rich, Putnam, Kelly and Jaycox, JJ.

McNally v. Samuel Appel Co., 189 A.D. 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

189 A.D. 918 (McNally v. Samuel Appel Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related