Rott v. Forty-Second Street & Grand Street Ferry Railroad

Superior Court of New York

Rott v. Forty-Second Street & Grand Street Ferry Railroad

1 N.Y.S. 518, 56 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 151, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1419

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedJune 20, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.Y.S. 518 (Rott v. Forty-Second Street & Grand Street Ferry Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rott v. Forty-Second Street & Grand Street Ferry Railroad, 1 N.Y.S. 518, 56 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 151, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1419 (superctny 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The action was for damages for negligence alleged in the complaint. The plaintiff, according to her own testimony and that of her daughter, accompanied her daughter into a car of defendant. The daughter testified that she told the conductor that the plaintiff was not a passenger, and the plaintiff turned, and proceeded to leave the car. At a point where she was about to step from the platform down to the street, as she testified, [519]*519the conductor rang the bell. The car moved forward, and the motion threw the plaintiff upon the street. At the end of the testimony the learned judge thought that there was not enough testimony to justify the jury in finding that the conductor had any reason to think that the plaintiff did go upon the car as a passenger, or that he knew that she was proceeding to leave the car, or intended to leave it, at the time he rang the bell. The declaration to the conductor that the plaintiff was not a passenger, accompanied with circumstantial evidence, such as the place where he stood, his field of vision, and the probability of the direction of his observation in the ordinary performance of his duty, made the case such that it should have been submitted to the jury. The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

The action was for damages for negligence alleged in the complaint. The plaintiff, according to her own testimony and that of her daughter, accompanied her daughter into a car of defendant. The daughter testified that she told the conductor that the plaintiff was not a passenger, and the plaintiff turned, and proceeded to leave the car. At a point where she was about to step from the platform down to the street, as she testified, [519]*519the conductor rang the bell. The car moved forward, and the motion threw the plaintiff upon the street. At the end of the testimony the learned judge thought that there was not enough testimony to justify the jury in finding that the conductor had any reason to think that the plaintiff did go upon the car as a passenger, or that he knew that she was proceeding to leave the car, or intended to leave it, at the time he rang the bell. The declaration to the conductor that the plaintiff was not a passenger, accompanied with circumstantial evidence, such as the place where he stood, his field of vision, and the probability of the direction of his observation in the ordinary performance of his duty, made the case such that it should have been submitted to the jury. The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.Y.S. 518, 56 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 151, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rott-v-forty-second-street-grand-street-ferry-railroad-superctny-1888.