Polacsek v. Manhattan Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Polacsek v. Manhattan Railway Co.

84 N.Y.S. 140

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 140 (Polacsek v. Manhattan 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

Polacsek v. Manhattan Railway Co., 84 N.Y.S. 140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

FREEDMAN, P. J.

This action is one for damages to personal property, arising out of the following circumstances: The plaintiff’s son testified that a shower of sparks from the funnel of one of the defendant’s engines fell on the plaintiff’s awning, setting it on fire. This fire extended to. some signs over the awning, and to a wooden figure below it. Plaintiff claims $69.50 damages, and recovered a judgment.

The evidence does not disclose from which of the defendant’s engines the sparks fell, nor were any of the plaintiff’s witnesses able to identify the engine. We fail to see how or in what respect the defendant was shown to be negligent. The defendant proved that all of its engines were equipped with the most modern and best appliances known for averting sparks and cinders, and that on the morning in question all the engines used on the line where the awning was burned were carefully inspected, and found to be in good condition. Stress is laid by the respondent upon the testimony of an expert witness called by the defendant, to the effect that, if sparks-of the size shown by plaintiff’s witness to have been emitted from [141]*141the engine were emitted, the engine could not have been in order; but the witness also testified that such emission of sparks would show not only that the engine could not have been in order, but that, under the system of inspection adopted and in force by the defendant, it would show that such engine got out of order in transit from the terminal to the point where the sparks came forth. The case of Flynn v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 142 N. Y. 11, 36 N. E. 1046, is decisive of this case.

Judgment reversed. New trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

FREEDMAN, P. J.

This action is one for damages to personal property, arising out of the following circumstances: The plaintiff’s son testified that a shower of sparks from the funnel of one of the defendant’s engines fell on the plaintiff’s awning, setting it on fire. This fire extended to. some signs over the awning, and to a wooden figure below it. Plaintiff claims $69.50 damages, and recovered a judgment.

The evidence does not disclose from which of the defendant’s engines the sparks fell, nor were any of the plaintiff’s witnesses able to identify the engine. We fail to see how or in what respect the defendant was shown to be negligent. The defendant proved that all of its engines were equipped with the most modern and best appliances known for averting sparks and cinders, and that on the morning in question all the engines used on the line where the awning was burned were carefully inspected, and found to be in good condition. Stress is laid by the respondent upon the testimony of an expert witness called by the defendant, to the effect that, if sparks-of the size shown by plaintiff’s witness to have been emitted from [141]*141the engine were emitted, the engine could not have been in order; but the witness also testified that such emission of sparks would show not only that the engine could not have been in order, but that, under the system of inspection adopted and in force by the defendant, it would show that such engine got out of order in transit from the terminal to the point where the sparks came forth. The case of Flynn v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 142 N. Y. 11, 36 N. E. 1046, is decisive of this case.

Judgment reversed. New trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polacsek-v-manhattan-railway-co-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack