Needham v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.
48 Misc. 522
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided November 15, 1905·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinion
There was no proof of negligence. All that is testified to is by the plaintiff that, as he walked toward the door, the train came to a “ sudden stop ” and he was thrown down. This is not sufficient to justify the inference that defendant or any of its servants was negligent. The complaint should have been dismissed.
Bischoff and Fitzgerald, JJ., concur.
Complaint dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Needham v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 48 Misc. 522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).
48 Misc. 522 (Needham v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gillmore v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.
116 N.Y.S. 674 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)
Goold v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
59 Misc. 36 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1908)
Norminton v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.
48 Misc. 526 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)
Flynn v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.
48 Misc. 529 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)