Pell v. Long Island Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pell v. Long Island Railroad

174 A.D. 895, 159 N.Y.S. 1132

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

DecidedJune 15, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A.D. 895 (Pell v. Long Island 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

Pell v. Long Island Railroad, 174 A.D. 895, 159 N.Y.S. 1132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the grounds: (a) That the finding imported by the verdict, to the effect that the whistle did not blow, is against the greater weight of the evidence; (b) that the charge was confusing upon certain material points, viz., in charging, in effect, that negligence could be found from the absence of a flagman and later that it could not, and in charging in like contradiction as to the question of speed; and (c) that the charge upon the subject of the signboard or post was erroneous. It is to be noted that the response to the thirty-fourth request to charge was in effect to grant it, viz.: “I have already charged this proposition.” Jenks, P. J., Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Thomas and Stapleton, JJ., voted to affirm.

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

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the grounds: (a) That the finding imported by the verdict, to the effect that the whistle did not blow, is against the greater weight of the evidence; (b) that the charge was confusing upon certain material points, viz., in charging, in effect, that negligence could be found from the absence of a flagman and later that it could not, and in charging in like contradiction as to the question of speed; and (c) that the charge upon the subject of the signboard or post was erroneous. It is to be noted that the response to the thirty-fourth request to charge was in effect to grant it, viz.: “I have already charged this proposition.” Jenks, P. J., Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Thomas and Stapleton, JJ., voted to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D. 895, 159 N.Y.S. 1132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pell-v-long-island-railroad-nyappdiv-1916.