Monahan v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Monahan v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

87 N.Y.S. 537

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 24, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 87 N.Y.S. 537 (Monahan 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

Monahan v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 87 N.Y.S. 537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, J.

The evidence clearly showed that the driver, Meyers, was guilty of contributory.negligence. He saw the car coming, and deliberately drove in front of it. He says himself that when he first entered Second avenue at Seventy-Eighth street, coming from the west, he saw the north-bound car at Seventy-Seventh street, coming north. He was walking his horses, and did not look for or see the car again until he was struck. Meanwhile he had walked his horses from the westerly side of the avenue across the westerly half of the avenue and the westerly track, and -his truck was on the easterly track. Some of the witnesses were apparently not very intelligent, or at least did not express themselves clearly, but the general effect of their testimony is that the driver, knowing that the car was coming, drove heedlessly in front of it without taking the slightest pains to avoid a collision.

Judgment in each case should be reversed and a new trial granted, 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

SCOTT, J.

The evidence clearly showed that the driver, Meyers, was guilty of contributory.negligence. He saw the car coming, and deliberately drove in front of it. He says himself that when he first entered Second avenue at Seventy-Eighth street, coming from the west, he saw the north-bound car at Seventy-Seventh street, coming north. He was walking his horses, and did not look for or see the car again until he was struck. Meanwhile he had walked his horses from the westerly side of the avenue across the westerly half of the avenue and the westerly track, and -his truck was on the easterly track. Some of the witnesses were apparently not very intelligent, or at least did not express themselves clearly, but the general effect of their testimony is that the driver, knowing that the car was coming, drove heedlessly in front of it without taking the slightest pains to avoid a collision.

Judgment in each case should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 N.Y.S. 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monahan-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1904.