Peterson v. New York City Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Peterson v. New York City Railway Co.

94 N.Y.S. 22

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 23, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 94 N.Y.S. 22 (Peterson v. New York City 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

Peterson v. New York City Railway Co., 94 N.Y.S. 22 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Our attention has been called to but one exception to the evidence, and that was to the question asked one of the witnesses—if he was in a position to hear if any bell had been rung or gong sounded. We are of the opinion that this exception was not well taken. Under the circumstances of the case, the answer did not injure the appellant. Whether plaintiff heard or did not hear the bell was immaterial. Even if he had [23]*23heard the bell, and did not get off the track, the defendant had no right to run into plaintiff and inflict the injuries that were inflicted. Cohn v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 34 Misc. Rep. 186, 68 N. Y. Supp. 830; Fishback v. Steinway Ry. Co., 11 App. Div. 152, 42 N. Y. Supp. 888.

We are also of the opinion that the judgment was not excessive. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Our attention has been called to but one exception to the evidence, and that was to the question asked one of the witnesses—if he was in a position to hear if any bell had been rung or gong sounded. We are of the opinion that this exception was not well taken. Under the circumstances of the case, the answer did not injure the appellant. Whether plaintiff heard or did not hear the bell was immaterial. Even if he had [23]*23heard the bell, and did not get off the track, the defendant had no right to run into plaintiff and inflict the injuries that were inflicted. Cohn v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 34 Misc. Rep. 186, 68 N. Y. Supp. 830; Fishback v. Steinway Ry. Co., 11 App. Div. 152, 42 N. Y. Supp. 888.

We are also of the opinion that the judgment was not excessive. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 N.Y.S. 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-new-york-city-railway-co-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack