Van Inwegen v. New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Van Inwegen v. New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad

28 N.Y.S. 169, 76 Hun 53, 83 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 53, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 289

DecidedFebruary 12, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 28 N.Y.S. 169 (Van Inwegen v. New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Van Inwegen v. New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad, 28 N.Y.S. 169, 76 Hun 53, 83 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 53, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 289 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

PRATT, J.

The principal argument urged against the verdict is that, if plaintiff was correct in his interpretation of the engineer’s action, it was willful and malicious, and not performed in the service of defendant. The answer to that argument is that the opinion of the plaintiff was not binding on the jury, who were the judges of that question. The engineer testified that he blew the whistle in the course of his duty for the purpose of moving the cars. The jury had a right to believe the engineer. They were also authorized by the testimony to find that the action of the engineer was heedless, and without due regard to the situation of the plaintiff. The charge of the court correctly laid down the law, and the testimony warranted the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

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

PRATT, J.

The principal argument urged against the verdict is that, if plaintiff was correct in his interpretation of the engineer’s action, it was willful and malicious, and not performed in the service of defendant. The answer to that argument is that the opinion of the plaintiff was not binding on the jury, who were the judges of that question. The engineer testified that he blew the whistle in the course of his duty for the purpose of moving the cars. The jury had a right to believe the engineer. They were also authorized by the testimony to find that the action of the engineer was heedless, and without due regard to the situation of the plaintiff. The charge of the court correctly laid down the law, and the testimony warranted the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 N.Y.S. 169, 76 Hun 53, 83 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 53, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-inwegen-v-new-york-lake-erie-western-railroad-nysupct-1894.