Murray v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Murray v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

84 N.Y.S. 876

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 18, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 876 (Murray v. Metropolitan 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

Murray v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 84 N.Y.S. 876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

FREEDMAN, P. J.

The plaintiff recovered for personal injuries sustained in a collision between a car of the defendant and an ice wagon on which he was riding as a helper. He was not driving, nor did he interfere in any manner with the driving. It may be questioned whether, under such circumstances, he can be charged with any negligence on the part of the driver. But even if it were so, the answer to it is that such question was submitted to the jury as one of fact, and that their finding upon this point in favor of the plaintiff should not be disturbed. The questions of defendant’s negligence and of plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence were properly submitted to the jury, and their verdict cannot be held to be against the weight of the evidence. The record discloses no reversible error.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

FREEDMAN, P. J.

The plaintiff recovered for personal injuries sustained in a collision between a car of the defendant and an ice wagon on which he was riding as a helper. He was not driving, nor did he interfere in any manner with the driving. It may be questioned whether, under such circumstances, he can be charged with any negligence on the part of the driver. But even if it were so, the answer to it is that such question was submitted to the jury as one of fact, and that their finding upon this point in favor of the plaintiff should not be disturbed. The questions of defendant’s negligence and of plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence were properly submitted to the jury, and their verdict cannot be held to be against the weight of the evidence. The record discloses no reversible error.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1903.