Van Houten v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

286 A.D. 875, 142 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4408
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 20, 1955
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 286 A.D. 875 (Van Houten v. New York, New Haven & Hartford 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
Van Houten v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 286 A.D. 875, 142 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses, and loss of services, it appears that the infant plain[876]*876tiff, a nine-year-old boy, crawled along the top of appellant’s freight car and was injured when he came into contact with an overhead wire which carried current for operation of electric locomotives. The boy testified that while he and his companion were atop a freight car two men on the ground yelled “ Get off ” in a “ mad voice ” and one waved a hand or a fist; that thereafter the boys ran along the tops of two or three cars, then crawled along the top of one car, under a bridge, and that upon emerging the infant plaintiff was about to stand when the train moved and caused him to fall into contact with the wire. Judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiffs reversed on the law, with costs, and the complaint dismissed. The findings implied by the verdict, that the two men were employees of the appellant, and that their conduct caused the injuries, are not affirmed. There is no evidence which identifies the two men or shows that they acted on behalf of appellant. Nor does the evidence support a finding that there was a causal connection between the acts of the two men and the injuries suffered by the infant plaintiff. Concededly, the infant plaintiff was a trespasser. (Van Houten v. Long Island B. B. Co279 App. Div. 1099, motion for leave to appeal denied 304 N. Y. 990.) Wenzel, Acting P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ziehm ex rel. Ziehm v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
25 A.D.2d 934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
Casto v. Long Island Rail Road
160 N.E.2d 846 (New York Court of Appeals, 1959)
Gonzalez v. Van Nostrand
7 A.D.2d 868 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Lo Casto v. Long Island Rail Road
7 A.D.2d 758 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
Scholl v. New York Central Railroad
2 A.D.2d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
286 A.D. 875, 142 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-houten-v-new-york-new-haven-hartford-railroad-nyappdiv-1955.