Redmond v. Hatch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Redmond v. Hatch

98 N.Y.S. 1111

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

DecidedApril 24, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 98 N.Y.S. 1111 (Redmond v. Hatch) 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

Redmond v. Hatch, 98 N.Y.S. 1111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The testimony shows" that the plaintiff, who was a police officer, while standing at a street crossing regulating traffic on the streets, and in such a position that he could not see the defendant’s driver, was knocked down and run over in broad daylight; that the driver of the defendant’s horses had ample room to pass plaintiff without striking him; and that there was nothing to obscure the vision of the driver. The driver was not called on the trial. We are of the opinion that the plaintiff showed that he was free from contributory negligence and that the injuries that he received were caused through the negligence of the defendant’s driver. Judgment appealed from is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

The testimony shows" that the plaintiff, who was a police officer, while standing at a street crossing regulating traffic on the streets, and in such a position that he could not see the defendant’s driver, was knocked down and run over in broad daylight; that the driver of the defendant’s horses had ample room to pass plaintiff without striking him; and that there was nothing to obscure the vision of the driver. The driver was not called on the trial. We are of the opinion that the plaintiff showed that he was free from contributory negligence and that the injuries that he received were caused through the negligence of the defendant’s driver. Judgment appealed from is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 N.Y.S. 1111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redmond-v-hatch-nyappdiv-1906.