Smith v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
This text of 276 A.D.2d 985 (Smith v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad) 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.
Opinion
No opinion. Appeal from original judgment dismissed, without costs. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Sneed and Mac-Crate, JJ., concur; Wenzel, J., concurs in the dismissal of the appeal from the original judgment, but dissents as to the affirmance of the amended judgment and votes to reverse said judgment, insofar as it is in favor of plaintiff against appellant, and to dismiss the complaint as against appellant for the following reasons: (1) In this ease there is no proof of what caused the door to fall. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether it was a patent defect which might have [986]*986been observable on reasonable examination. This not being a case involving the principle of res ipsa loquitur, the jury was left to guess as to how the accident came about. If the accident occurred because of a structural or a latent defect, no liability would attach to the appellant. (2) Plaintiff’s principal witness testified that upon examination of the fallen door after the accident, he found nothing wrong with it. He should not have been permitted to testify as to its condition an hour or more thereafter, unless it affirmatively appeared that the door had not been handled by others in the interim. Wenzel, J., is of the further opinion, if the complaint be not dismissed as against appellant, that then in any event on its cross complaint appellant is entitled to judgment over against the respondent railroad company and that it was error to dismiss such cross complaint. The freight car belonged to the railroad company. The duty of seeing that it was kept in a reasonably safe condition devolved upon it, if any one. Consequently, the negligence, if any, of the appellant, would necessarily be only passive.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
276 A.D.2d 985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-baltimore-ohio-railroad-nyappdiv-1950.