45 N.Y. 660, Gorton v. Erie Railway Co.

Citation:45 N.Y. 660
Party Name:STEPHEN M. GORTON, Respondent, v. THE ERIE RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
Case Date:June 06, 1871
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 660

45 N.Y. 660

STEPHEN M. GORTON, Respondent,

v.

THE ERIE RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

New York Court of Appeal

June 6, 1871

Argued May 29th, 1871.

Page 661

COUNSEL

G. M. Diven, for the appellant. On the question of negligence, Ernst v. H. R. R. R. Co. (39 N.Y. 47, 68); Beisiegel v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co. (34 N.Y. 625); Havens v. Erie R. R. Co. (41 N.Y. 298, 299). On the question of intoxication, Ernst v. H. R. R. R. Co. (34 How., 110); 35 N.Y. 21; Button v. H. R. R. R. Co. (18 N.Y. 248); Aqer v. City of Lowell (3 Allen, 402, 406); S. & R. on Negligence, § § 45, 417, note 1.

Brown & Graves, for the respondent. The finding of the jury upon questions of fact is conclusive. (14 N.Y. 310; 13 N.Y. 533; 36 How., 84.) Former declarations must not only relate to the issue, but must be matters of fact, and not merely a former opinion of the witness. (Holmes v. Anderson, 18 Barb., 420; Eltin v. Larkins, 5 Carr. & Payne, 385; 1 Cow. & Hill's Notes, 727, 772; 1 Green. Ev., 586; Teall v. Borden, 40 Barb., 137.) The question of negligence is one for the jury, where there is any conflict of testimony upon that point. (39 N.Y. 68; 37 N.Y. 287; 36 N.Y. 132; 35 N.Y. 10; 13 N.Y. 533; 26 How., 177; 23 How., 168; 36 How., 84; 30 How., 219; 40 Barb., 193; Starker's Ev., 2d vol., 973.) On the question of intoxication, Stark. Ev., 3d vol., 496; Hart v. Newland (3 Hawks., 122, 123); United States v. Jones (1 Wash. C. C. R., 372); Haley v. Earle (30 N.Y. 208);

Page 662

Green. on Ev., 70, § 52; 584, § 448; Phil. & Am. on Ev., 909, 910; 1 E. D. Smith, 271. On the question of the rate of speed, Hosley v. Black (28 N.Y. 438); 26 How., 97; 1 E. D. Smith, 271; Kelsey v. Barney (12 N.Y. 425); Johnson v. Hudson R. R. R. Co. (20 N.Y. 66); affirming S. C. in 6 Duer, 633, and disapproving, Brand v. S. & T. R. R. Co. (8 Barb., 368); Ernst v. H. R. R. R. Co. (39 N.Y. 67); Harty v. C. R. R. Co. (42 N.Y. 472).

ALLEN, J.

At the close of the evidence on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant moved that the plaintiff be nonsuited, upon the ground that he was shown to have been negligent, in approaching as well as in crossing the railroad track; that is, that the plaintiff was not wholly without fault, but that the injury was in part attributable to his own negligence and want of care.

Evidence had been given tending very strongly to show, that as the train of cars approached the road...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP