Murphy v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

93 N.Y.S. 728

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 12, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 93 N.Y.S. 728 (Murphy v. Interurban Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murphy v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 93 N.Y.S. 728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLER, J.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered upon a nonsuit. The jury could have found from the evidence that the horse car in which the plaintiff was a passenger was derailed by the defendant’s servants for the purpose of getting around a truck which blocked the track; that no warning or opportunity to leave the car was given the passengers; that the jolting of the car, caused by its running into a rut or hitting some obstruction, threw the plaintiff forward, then backward, so that her head struck the side of the car with sufficient force to cause the injuries for which she sues. We think that the evidence which would have justified these conclusions required the submission of the case to the jury, and that the dismissal of the complaint was error which requires a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted; costs to abide the event. All concur.

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

MILLER, J.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered upon a nonsuit. The jury could have found from the evidence that the horse car in which the plaintiff was a passenger was derailed by the defendant’s servants for the purpose of getting around a truck which blocked the track; that no warning or opportunity to leave the car was given the passengers; that the jolting of the car, caused by its running into a rut or hitting some obstruction, threw the plaintiff forward, then backward, so that her head struck the side of the car with sufficient force to cause the injuries for which she sues. We think that the evidence which would have justified these conclusions required the submission of the case to the jury, and that the dismissal of the complaint was error which requires a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted; costs to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 N.Y.S. 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappdiv-1905.