Tierney v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tierney v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.

243 A.D. 782

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D. 782 (Tierney v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.) 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

Tierney v. New York Rapid Transit Corp., 243 A.D. 782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for personal injuries, judgment for the defendant, entered upon a dismissal of the complaint, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. We are of the opinion that the jury might find that the absence of light on the stairway was at least an efficient, concurring, proximate cause of the accident. The plaintiff not only testified that he caught his heel in the plate on the stairway, but also that his foot struck the plate, and he fell down the stairway. On this testimony, it could not be held as a matter of law that the catching of his heel in the plate was the sole cause of the accident. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Scudder and Johnston, JJ., concur."

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

In an action for personal injuries, judgment for the defendant, entered upon a dismissal of the complaint, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. We are of the opinion that the jury might find that the absence of light on the stairway was at least an efficient, concurring, proximate cause of the accident. The plaintiff not only testified that he caught his heel in the plate on the stairway, but also that his foot struck the plate, and he fell down the stairway. On this testimony, it could not be held as a matter of law that the catching of his heel in the plate was the sole cause of the accident. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Scudder and Johnston, JJ., concur."

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tierney-v-new-york-rapid-transit-corp-nyappdiv-1935.