Williams v. New York City Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. New York City Railway Co.

49 Misc. 253, 97 N.Y.S. 393

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 Misc. 253 (Williams v. New York City Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. New York City Railway Co., 49 Misc. 253, 97 N.Y.S. 393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Scott, J.

The verdict was clearly against the weight of •the evidence. The witnesses for the plaintiff, as to the happening of the accident, were the driver of the wagon and •one bystander. The driver’s evidence was of a character which gave no clear idea of how the accident happened. The bystander testified that the car was coming north on the •easterly track, at a high rate of speed, about midway between Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth streets, when the wagon was at the southwest corner of Thirty-eighth street and Ninth avenue, and that the driver went right ahead and •drove in front of the car. One of the driver’s versions seems to agree with this story, which is consistent with the testimony given by all the defendant’s witnesses, that the •driver tried to cross about fifteen or twenty feet ahead of the car. The result of the evidence is that the driver saw, ■or could have seen, the car coming in ample time to avoid a -collision; but, either recklessly or stupidly, kept on and drove [254]*254directly in front of it, thus inviting the collision that occurred.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Blanchard and Dowling, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Scott, J.

The verdict was clearly against the weight of •the evidence. The witnesses for the plaintiff, as to the happening of the accident, were the driver of the wagon and •one bystander. The driver’s evidence was of a character which gave no clear idea of how the accident happened. The bystander testified that the car was coming north on the •easterly track, at a high rate of speed, about midway between Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth streets, when the wagon was at the southwest corner of Thirty-eighth street and Ninth avenue, and that the driver went right ahead and •drove in front of the car. One of the driver’s versions seems to agree with this story, which is consistent with the testimony given by all the defendant’s witnesses, that the •driver tried to cross about fifteen or twenty feet ahead of the car. The result of the evidence is that the driver saw, ■or could have seen, the car coming in ample time to avoid a -collision; but, either recklessly or stupidly, kept on and drove [254]*254directly in front of it, thus inviting the collision that occurred.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Blanchard and Dowling, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Misc. 253, 97 N.Y.S. 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-new-york-city-railway-co-nyappterm-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack