190 N.Y. 439, Baxter v. Auburn & S. Electric R. Co.

Citation:190 N.Y. 439
Party Name:ANGELINE BAXTER, as Administratrix of the Estate of CHARLES E. BAXTER, Deceased, Respondent, v. AUBURN AND SYRACUSE ELECTRIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
Case Date:January 07, 1908
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 439

190 N.Y. 439

ANGELINE BAXTER, as Administratrix of the Estate of CHARLES E. BAXTER, Deceased, Respondent,

v.

AUBURN AND SYRACUSE ELECTRIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

New York Court of Appeal

January 7, 1908

Argued December 17, 1907.

COUNSEL

William Nottingham for appellant. The defendant's motion for a nonsuit made when plaintiff rested, and renewed at the close of the case, was well founded and should have been granted. Not only did the plaintiff's proof fail to show the absence of contributory negligence on the part of her intestate, but also upon the entire evidence it clearly appeared that his negligence either contributed to or was the sole cause of the accident. ( Conway v. A. C. Ry. Co., 84 A.D. 633; 180 N.Y. 549; Meyer v. B. H. R. R. Co., 9 A.D. 79; Reynolds v. L. H. Ry. Co., 83 A.D. 189; Van Patten v. S. St. Ry. Co., 80 Hun, 494; Dolfini v. E. R. R. Co.,

Page 440

178 N.Y. 1; Rider v. S. R. T. Ry. Co., 171 N.Y. 139; Jackson v. U. Ry. Co., 77 A.D. 161; Adolph v. C. P., N. & E. R. R. Co., 76 N.Y. 530; McClain v. B. C. R. R. Co., 116 N.Y. 459; Goodman v. M. St. Ry. Co., 63 A.D. 84.)

Richard C. S. Drummond for respondent. The evidence tending to establish the fact that the deceased exercised due care and was free from contributory negligence was abundant, and both required the submission by the court of that question to the jury and warranted and supported the jury's finding. ( Monck v. B. H. R. R. Co., 97 A.D. 447; Lawson v. M. St. Ry. Co., 40 A.D. 307; 166 N.Y. 589; Flekenstein v. R. R. Co., 105 N.Y. 655; Smith v. M. Ry. Co., 7 A.D. 253; Kitay v. R. R. Co., 23 A.D. 228; Fishbach v. S. Ry. Co., 11 A.D. 152; Moore v. M. Ry. Co., 84 A.D. 613; Schron v. S. I. El. R. R. Co., 16 A.D. 111; Jetter v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 458; Willy v. Mulledy, 78 N.Y. 310.) The deceased was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and the trial court was right in so ruling on the evidence. ( Stackus v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 79 N.Y. 464; Smith v. Coe, 55 N.Y. 678; Harris v. Perry, 89 N.Y. 308; Snowden v. Town of Somerset, 171 N.Y. 106; Chisholm v. State, 141 N.Y. 246; Dobert v. T. C. Ry. Co., 91 Hun, 28; Harris v. Perry, 89 N.Y. 311; McDonald v. M. St. Ry. Co., 167 N.Y. 66; Charters v. Palmer, 113 A.D. 108; Shafer v. Mayor, etc., 154 N.Y. 466; Henavie v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 166 N.Y. 280.)

GRAY, J.

The plaintiff has recovered a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP