Wright v. New York Central Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wright v. New York Central Railroad

258 A.D. 935, 16 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7637

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 935 (Wright v. New York Central 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

Wright v. New York Central Railroad, 258 A.D. 935, 16 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We find that the trial court was right in holding, on plaintiff’s own showing, that defendant gave timely and adequate warning of the approach of the train to the crossing. It was not error for the court, under the circumstances, and as a matter of discretion, to refuse to permit the plaintiff to reopen his case in order to swear defendant’s fireman in the hope that he would testify that he saw decedent approaching the crossing, for, after giving proper warning, defendant owed no duty to anticipate that decedent would dispute the right of way with the defendant. (Kawacz v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R., 259 N. Y. 166.) All concur. (The judgment dismisses the complaint in a railroad negligence action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We find that the trial court was right in holding, on plaintiff’s own showing, that defendant gave timely and adequate warning of the approach of the train to the crossing. It was not error for the court, under the circumstances, and as a matter of discretion, to refuse to permit the plaintiff to reopen his case in order to swear defendant’s fireman in the hope that he would testify that he saw decedent approaching the crossing, for, after giving proper warning, defendant owed no duty to anticipate that decedent would dispute the right of way with the defendant. (Kawacz v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R., 259 N. Y. 166.) All concur. (The judgment dismisses the complaint in a railroad negligence action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 935, 16 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-new-york-central-railroad-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack