Signet v. Werner

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Signet v. Werner

159 N.Y.S. 894

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 26, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 159 N.Y.S. 894 (Signet v. Werner) 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

Signet v. Werner, 159 N.Y.S. 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sues for damages caused by being run into by defendant’s automobile. He testified that at half .past 6 on a rainy February night, while crossing 110th street, the car ran into him'when he was about two steps from the curb. He further testified that the car was going fast and that he did not hear any horn.

While it is true on his cross-examination that he gave testimony from which the jury might find that he looked only straight ahead before he started to cross the street, there is ample evidence that .he looked both to the right and the left before leaving the curb. Knapp v. Barrett, 216 N. Y. 226, 110 N. E. 428.

It was therefore error to dismiss the complaint, and the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sues for damages caused by being run into by defendant’s automobile. He testified that at half .past 6 on a rainy February night, while crossing 110th street, the car ran into him'when he was about two steps from the curb. He further testified that the car was going fast and that he did not hear any horn.

While it is true on his cross-examination that he gave testimony from which the jury might find that he looked only straight ahead before he started to cross the street, there is ample evidence that .he looked both to the right and the left before leaving the curb. Knapp v. Barrett, 216 N. Y. 226, 110 N. E. 428.

It was therefore error to dismiss the complaint, and the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 N.Y.S. 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/signet-v-werner-nyappterm-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack