Thomas Roulston, Inc. v. Long Island Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas Roulston, Inc. v. Long Island Railroad

230 A.D. 735

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

DecidedJune 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 230 A.D. 735 (Thomas Roulston, Inc. v. Long Island 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.

Bluebook

Thomas Roulston, Inc. v. Long Island Railroad, 230 A.D. 735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

In Hansen v. Long Island Railroad Company, judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Appeal from that part of the order which denies defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial is dismissed. In Roulston, Inc., v. Long Island Railroad Company, that part of the order which sets aside the verdict and grants a new trial is unanimously affirmed, with costs. Plaintiffs did not sustain the burden of proving defendant’s negligence by a fair preponderance of the evidence, and it seems to this court that the driver of the truck, plaintiff’s intestate in the Hansen case, and plaintiff’s employee in the Roulston case, was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law. Lazansky,P. J., Young, Kapper, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

In Hansen v. Long Island Railroad Company, judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Appeal from that part of the order which denies defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial is dismissed. In Roulston, Inc., v. Long Island Railroad Company, that part of the order which sets aside the verdict and grants a new trial is unanimously affirmed, with costs. Plaintiffs did not sustain the burden of proving defendant’s negligence by a fair preponderance of the evidence, and it seems to this court that the driver of the truck, plaintiff’s intestate in the Hansen case, and plaintiff’s employee in the Roulston case, was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law. Lazansky,P. J., Young, Kapper, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.D. 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-roulston-inc-v-long-island-railroad-nyappdiv-1930.