Meyerowitz v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyerowitz v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

84 N.Y.S. 233

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 233 (Meyerowitz 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

Meyerowitz v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 84 N.Y.S. 233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

FREEDMAN, P. J.

This is one of the ordinary actions for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The only evidence given by the plaintiff, who was the only witness sworn in his behalf, as to the occurrence, was that one of the defendant’s cars stopped in response to his signal, and that plaintiff “stepped with the right foot on the car, and then I was holding. .1 wanted to get on, and the car started, and I fell off;1 and the car went right along, and I fell on the street.” This is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. The mere starting of a car is not negligence. How or in what manner the car in this case was started does not appear, nor was it shown that the plaintiff’s fall was caused by such starting of the car.

Judgment reversed. New trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

FREEDMAN, P. J.

This is one of the ordinary actions for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The only evidence given by the plaintiff, who was the only witness sworn in his behalf, as to the occurrence, was that one of the defendant’s cars stopped in response to his signal, and that plaintiff “stepped with the right foot on the car, and then I was holding. .1 wanted to get on, and the car started, and I fell off;1 and the car went right along, and I fell on the street.” This is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. The mere starting of a car is not negligence. How or in what manner the car in this case was started does not appear, nor was it shown that the plaintiff’s fall was caused by such starting of the car.

Judgment reversed. New trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyerowitz-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack