Meek v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Meek v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

23 N.Y.S. 420, 69 Hun 488, 76 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 488

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 9, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 N.Y.S. 420 (Meek v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meek v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 23 N.Y.S. 420, 69 Hun 488, 76 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 488 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

HERRICK, J.

It seems to me that this case turns upon questions of fact, which were finally submitted to the jury. The question as to whether the intestate attempted to uncouple the cars while they were in motion is a matter to be submitted to the jury. There does not seem to be any positive evidence either way. There was evidence that there was a block in the frog before the accident; that it had been removed, apparently, the day of the accident. The question whether intestate’s foot got caught in the frog when the block had been taken out was for the jury. Whether it was negligence not to have it blocked, or keep it blocked,—it having been blocked,—was also for the jury. I see no occasion for an opinion.

. Judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

HERRICK, J.

It seems to me that this case turns upon questions of fact, which were finally submitted to the jury. The question as to whether the intestate attempted to uncouple the cars while they were in motion is a matter to be submitted to the jury. There does not seem to be any positive evidence either way. There was evidence that there was a block in the frog before the accident; that it had been removed, apparently, the day of the accident. The question whether intestate’s foot got caught in the frog when the block had been taken out was for the jury. Whether it was negligence not to have it blocked, or keep it blocked,—it having been blocked,—was also for the jury. I see no occasion for an opinion.

. Judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 N.Y.S. 420, 69 Hun 488, 76 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meek-v-new-york-central-hudson-river-railroad-nysupct-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack