173 N.Y. 519, Pinder v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co.

Citation:173 N.Y. 519
Party Name:JAMES M. PINDER, as Administrator of the Estate of ARTHUR PINDER, Deceased, Respondent, v. THE BROOKLYN HEIGHTS RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
Case Date:February 17, 1903
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 519

173 N.Y. 519

JAMES M. PINDER, as Administrator of the Estate of ARTHUR PINDER, Deceased, Respondent,

v.

THE BROOKLYN HEIGHTS RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

New York Court of Appeal

February 17, 1903

Argued January 30, 1903.

Page 520

COUNSEL

I. R. Oeland and George D. Yeomans for appellant. There being no evidence to show decedent's freedom from contributory negligence, and no circumstances from which a reasonable inference could be drawn by the jury that he was free from contributory negligence, the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint. ( Wieland v. D. & H. C. Co., 167 N.Y. 27; Wiwirowski v. L. S. & M. S. R. R. Co., 124 N.Y. 420; Cordell v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 75 N.Y. 330; Tolman v. S., B. & N.Y. R. R. Co., 98 N.Y. 198; Rodrian v. N.Y. N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 125 N.Y. 527; Reynolds v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 58 N.Y. 248; Bond v. Smith, 113 N.Y. 378; Ruppert v. B. H. R. R. Co., 154 N.Y. 94; Baulec v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 59 N.Y. 357.) There was no proof of defendant's negligence or facts from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the defendant was negligent, and the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint. ( McDonald v. M. S. Ry. Co., 167 N.Y. 67; Keller v. Brooklyn H. R. R. Co., 48 A.D. 557; Totarella v. N.Y. & Q. C. R. Co., 53 A.D. 413; Costello v. T. A. R. R. Co., 161 N.Y. 317.) The Appellate Division erred in reversing the judgment of the trial court. ( Ruppert v. B. H. R. R. Co., 154 N.Y. 94; 171 N.Y. 633; Seifter v. B. H. R. R. Co., 169 N.Y. 254; People v. Kennedy, 32 N.Y. 140; People v. Fitzsimmons, 156 N.Y. 257; Getman v. D. & L. R. R. Co., 162 N.Y. 25.)

Robert Stewart for respondent. The question of contributory negligence was, under all the circumstances of the case, one of fact for the jury to determine, and should have

Page 521

been submitted to them. ( Place v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 167 N.Y. 345; Costello v. T. A. R. R. Co., 161 N.Y. 317; Higgins v. Eagleton, 155 N.Y. 471; Stuber v. McEntee, 142 N.Y. 205; St. John v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 165 N.Y. 241; McDonald v. M. S. Ry. Co., 167 N.Y. 66; Totarella v. N.Y. & Q. C. R. Co., 53 A.D. 413; Palmer v. Dearing, 93 N.Y. 7; Rooks v. H., etc., R. R. Co., 10 A.D. 98; Moebus v. Herrman, 108 N.Y. 349.)The question as to the negligence of the defendant in the operation of its cars is not now before this court, but there was, however, evidence in the case sufficient to require the submission of the question of defendant's...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP