79 N.Y. 464, Stackus v. New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co.
|Citation:||79 N.Y. 464|
|Party Name:||WILLIAM STACKUS, Appellant, v. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent.|
|Case Date:||January 13, 1880|
|Court:||New York Court of Appeals|
Argued Dec. 15, 1879.
H. V. Howland, for appellant. All the circumstances should have been submitted to the jury, and from them the plaintiff had a right to ask a verdict that he was not guilty of contributory negligence. ( Myers v. Dixon, 45 H. P. R., 48, 49; Bernhard v. R. and S. R. R. Co., Abb. Ct. App. Dec., 131; Weber v. N.Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 58 N.Y. 451-455; Massoth v. D. and H. C. Co., 64 Id., 524-529; Hill v. N.Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 2 Weekly Digest, 94; affirmed 64 N.Y. 652; McGovern v. N.Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 67 N.Y. 417-421; Girmce v. S. A. R. Co., 67 Id., 596; W. P. P. R. Co. v. Whipple, 6 Weekly Digest, 60; McCauly v. Mayor of N.Y. 4 Id., 135.) The fact of plaintiff's going upon the track in a covered carriage was not, in itself, negligence. ( Ernst v. H. R. R. R. Co., 35 N.Y. 30; Davis v. N.Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 47 Id., 400-402; W. P. P. R. Co. v. Whipple, 6 Weekly Digest, 60, 61; Dolan v. D. and H. C. Co., 71 N.Y. 285-288.)
Daniel Pratt, for respondent. Where the evidence shows a clear case of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff the court should nonsuit. Where facts are undisputed
negligence, is a matter of law. ( Mitchell v. N.Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 64 N.Y. 55; Johnson v. Hudson R. R. R. Co., 20 Id., 65; Reynolds v. N.Y. C. and H. R. R. Co., 58 Id., 4; Davis v. Same, 47 Id., 400; Wilcox v. R. and W. R. R. Co., 393 Id., 358; Groton v. Erie R. R. Co., 45 Id., 660; McCall v. N.Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 54 Id., 662; Gibbon v. McMillen, 5 Moore's [N. S.] P. C., 434; Collon v. Wood, 8 C. & P. [N. S.], 568; Toomey v. Brighton Railway, 693 C. B. [ N. S.], 146; Cornman v. Eastern Counties R. R. Co., 4 H. &. N., 781; Ryder v. Wormbly, L. R. [ 4 Ex.], 32; S. C., 1 C. & P., 306.)
CHURCH, Ch. J.
This case belongs to a class of cases of frequent occurrence. The amount involved is not so large as to render it important. The importance of the case arises chiefly, from the necessity of keeping the dividing line between questions of law which belong exclusively to the court, and questions of fact which belong to the jury to determine, well...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP