180 N.Y. 466, Wazenski v. New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co.

Citation:180 N.Y. 466
Party Name:WILLIAM WAZENSKI, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent.
Case Date:February 21, 1905
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 466

180 N.Y. 466

WILLIAM WAZENSKI, Appellant,

v.

NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent.

New York Court of Appeal

February 21, 1905

Argued January 27, 1905.

COUNSEL

David N. Salisbury for appellant. Upon the review of a nonsuit the plaintiff is entitled to the most favorable inferences deducible from the evidence, and if there is any conflict of testimony it is to be resolved in his favor. If the inferences deducible from the facts are not certain and incontrovertible, they should be left to the jury. ( Galvin v. Mayor, 112 N.Y. 223; Weil v. D. D., etc., R. Co., 119 N.Y. 147; Pratt v. D. H. M. F. Ins. Co., 130 N.Y. 206; Tinker v. N.Y. O., etc., R. R. Co., 71 Hun, 431; Gonzales v. N.Y. & H. R. R. Co., 39 How. Pr. 407; McNally v. P. Ins. Co., 137 N.Y. 389.) Defendant's negligence, which caused the accident and injury complained of, was fully established; at least, it cannot be held as a matter of law that defendant was not negligent, but it should have been left to the jury to determine. ( Pantzar v. T. F. I. M. Co.,

Page 467

99 N.Y. 368; Eastland v. Clarke, 165 N.Y. 420; Kranz v. L. I. R. R. Co., 123 N.Y. 1; Plank v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 60 N.Y. 607; Bateman v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 178 N.Y. 84; Ryan v. Fowler, 24 N.Y. 410; Stapf v. L. G. Brewing Co., 1 A.D. 405; Mayer v. Liebman, 16 A.D. 54; Benzing v. Steinway, 101 N.Y. 547.)The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Whether he was or was not guilty is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. ( Ireland v. O., H. & S. P. R. Co., 13 N.Y. 526; Keller v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 24 How. Pr. 172, 177; Bernhard v. R. & S. R. R. Co., 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 131; Ernst v. H. R. R. R. Co., 35 N.Y. 9; Gonzales v. N.Y. & H. R. R. Co., 39 How. Pr. 407; Weber v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 58 N.Y. 451; Thurber v. H. B. & M. F. R. Co., 60 N.Y. 326; Stackhus v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 79 N.Y. 464; Kain v. Smith, 89 N.Y. 375; Kettle v. Turl, 162 N.Y. 255; Eastland v. Clarke, 165 N.Y. 420.)

Albert H. Harris for respondent. The defendant was not negligent. ( Nugent v. Railroad Co., 64 A.D. 351; Sweeney v. B. & J. E. Co., 101 N.Y. 520; Bajus v. Railroad Co., 103 N.Y. 312.) The plaintiff was negligent. ( McCarthy v. Emerson, 77 A.D. 562.)

O'BRIEN...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP