Romeo v. Union Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Romeo v. Union Railway Co.

52 Misc. 578, 102 N.Y.S. 844

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 52 Misc. 578 (Romeo v. Union 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

Romeo v. Union Railway Co., 52 Misc. 578, 102 N.Y.S. 844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLean, J.

Without commenting upon the indications in the plaintiff’s testimony as to his taking care or no care at all to avoid being struck by a car from behind, and as to inferences respecting his care or carelessness in coming into a place of peril (Dooley v. Union Railway Co., 106 App. Div. 397, 399.), it is to be said that the issue of contributory negligence, under the evidence in the case, was erroneously withdrawn or too much withdrawn from the jury by the instruction of the learned justice: “ I am going to charge you [579]*579here that if he was proceeding down the track and a car was coming behind him it was not his business to look around unless he heard a noise ” and “ Unless his attention is called by a bell or shout or something of that kind to turn around, particularly on a bicycle, his eyes are supposed to be ahead and only ahead; and if the car strikes him behind it is for you to show it is not your negligence in striking him. Maher v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 102 App. Div. 517, 519. The judgment should be reversed.

Gildersleeve and Amend, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to ' appellant to abide event.

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

MacLean, J.

Without commenting upon the indications in the plaintiff’s testimony as to his taking care or no care at all to avoid being struck by a car from behind, and as to inferences respecting his care or carelessness in coming into a place of peril (Dooley v. Union Railway Co., 106 App. Div. 397, 399.), it is to be said that the issue of contributory negligence, under the evidence in the case, was erroneously withdrawn or too much withdrawn from the jury by the instruction of the learned justice: “ I am going to charge you [579]*579here that if he was proceeding down the track and a car was coming behind him it was not his business to look around unless he heard a noise ” and “ Unless his attention is called by a bell or shout or something of that kind to turn around, particularly on a bicycle, his eyes are supposed to be ahead and only ahead; and if the car strikes him behind it is for you to show it is not your negligence in striking him. Maher v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 102 App. Div. 517, 519. The judgment should be reversed.

Gildersleeve and Amend, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to ' appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 Misc. 578, 102 N.Y.S. 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romeo-v-union-railway-co-nyappterm-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack