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|
Argued December 17, 1907.
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.,
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.)
The plaintiff has recovered a...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP