Palmieri v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Palmieri v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

84 N.Y.S. 1138

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 1138 (Palmieri 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

Palmieri v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 84 N.Y.S. 1138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

The plaintiff testified that he was proceeding northward on Second avenue, and turned at Twenty-First street to cross westerly. He saw a car, southbound, coming slowly, 10 or 12 feet away, tie was at that time about 12 feet from the car that was going down town. That car struck the rear wheel of his bicycle, knocked him down, and injured him. It would seem from the plaintiff’s own testimony that the car came faster than he expected, and that he was injured because of the mistake in his calculation; that he clearly saw the possible danger, made his calculation, and failed. In accordance with this is the testimony introduced by the defendant, indicating quite distinctly that the injured man was guilty of contributory negligence. The plaintiff stated, however, that he saw the car increase its speed when it came to collide with him. A similar statement was made by liis witness. Both were contradicted. Although the evidence tends strongly to show and prove that the plaintiff was at fault in bringing the accident upon himself, it may not be said that the weight of the evidence is so in favor of the defendant that the judgment should be reversed. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

MacLEAN, J.

The plaintiff testified that he was proceeding northward on Second avenue, and turned at Twenty-First street to cross westerly. He saw a car, southbound, coming slowly, 10 or 12 feet away, tie was at that time about 12 feet from the car that was going down town. That car struck the rear wheel of his bicycle, knocked him down, and injured him. It would seem from the plaintiff’s own testimony that the car came faster than he expected, and that he was injured because of the mistake in his calculation; that he clearly saw the possible danger, made his calculation, and failed. In accordance with this is the testimony introduced by the defendant, indicating quite distinctly that the injured man was guilty of contributory negligence. The plaintiff stated, however, that he saw the car increase its speed when it came to collide with him. A similar statement was made by liis witness. Both were contradicted. Although the evidence tends strongly to show and prove that the plaintiff was at fault in bringing the accident upon himself, it may not be said that the weight of the evidence is so in favor of the defendant that the judgment should be reversed. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 1138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmieri-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1903.