Needham v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Needham v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

95 N.Y.S. 561

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 3, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 95 N.Y.S. 561 (Needham v. Interborough Rapid Transit 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

Needham v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 95 N.Y.S. 561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, P. J.

There was no proof of negligence. All that is testified to is by the plaintiff that as he walked towards 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 were negligent. The complaint should have been dismissed. Black v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 2 App. Div. 387, 37 N. Y. Supp. 830.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

SCOTT, P. J.

There was no proof of negligence. All that is testified to is by the plaintiff that as he walked towards 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 were negligent. The complaint should have been dismissed. Black v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 2 App. Div. 387, 37 N. Y. Supp. 830.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 N.Y.S. 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/needham-v-interborough-rapid-transit-co-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack