Nixon v. New York Central Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nixon v. New York Central Railroad

10 A.D.2d 870, 199 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10713

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

DecidedApril 11, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 A.D.2d 870 (Nixon v. New York Central Railroad) 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

Nixon v. New York Central Railroad, 10 A.D.2d 870, 199 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order denying appellants’ motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. To entitle appellants to a summary judgment pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, proof must be submitted to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment. The only evidence offered by appellants is that a train owned and operated by respondent was derailed while appellants were lawfully riding therein; that no foreign objects were found on the tracks by the conductor; and that appellants were injured. Although the parties agree that the rule of res ipso loquitur applies, the question of negligence, even in such a ease, is one of fact, unless the prima facie proof is so convincing that the inference of negligence arising therefrom is inescapable if not rebutted by other evidence. (George Foltis, Inc. v. City of New York, 287 N. Y. 108.) In our opinion, the proof in this record does not bring the instant case within that exception. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order denying appellants’ motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. To entitle appellants to a summary judgment pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, proof must be submitted to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment. The only evidence offered by appellants is that a train owned and operated by respondent was derailed while appellants were lawfully riding therein; that no foreign objects were found on the tracks by the conductor; and that appellants were injured. Although the parties agree that the rule of res ipso loquitur applies, the question of negligence, even in such a ease, is one of fact, unless the prima facie proof is so convincing that the inference of negligence arising therefrom is inescapable if not rebutted by other evidence. (George Foltis, Inc. v. City of New York, 287 N. Y. 108.) In our opinion, the proof in this record does not bring the instant case within that exception. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 870, 199 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nixon-v-new-york-central-railroad-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack