Davenport v. Brooklyn City R. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 November 1885 |
| Parties | DAVENPORT v. BROOKLYN CITY R. CO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jerry A. Wernberg, for appellant, Amzie B. Davenport.
Winchester Britton, for respondent, Brooklyn City R. Co.
We tnink the plaintiff was properly nonsuited. We do not perceive how it was possible for him to be injured without some carelessness on his part. At the place where he was injured there were two railway tracks in Fulton street running north and south. A car of the defendant was upon the easterly track going north, and a De Kalb avenue car was upon the westerly track going sough. The plaintiff, in the month of August, when it was perfectly light, being desirous to take the De Kalb avenue car, passed from the easterly side of Fulton street over both tracks to see if the car was coming, and saw it coming. He then recrossed both tracks to the easterly curb of the street, and then, as the car came near him, he signaled for it to stop, and crossed over the easterly track into the space between the tracks, and then, as the De Kalb avenue car stopped to let him on, and as he was in the act of getting on, he looked southerly and saw the defendant's car coming, 50 or 75 feet from him. Before he got on he was hit by that car and injured. The horses attached to the defendant's car were trotting at the rate of about five miles an hour. After seeing the defendant's car coming, he testified that he paid no more attention to it until he was hit by it. It further appeared that defendant's car could be seen, as it was approaching the place where the plaintiff stood, for a distance of at least 250 feet. When the plaintiff was on the westerly side of the tracks he was in a place of entire safety, and he could have entered the car on that side without any risk of injury, and why he recrossed the tracks does not appear.
It does not appear how much space there was between the two tracks. If there was space enough so that the cars could pass without hitting a person carefully standing between them, then it is impossible to perceive how the plaintiff was injured without carelessly exposing himself to the collision. If there was not space enough, then the plaintiff, knowing that cars were almost constantly passing at that point, should not have put himself in a place of danger; and, knowing that it was a place of danger, he should have guarded against the peril when he was able to see an approaching car for 250 feet. He actually...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Cook v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
-
Kennedy v. St. Paul City Railway Co.
... ... Mich. 402; Miller v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 42 Minn ... 454; Reed v. Minneapolis Street Ry. Co., 34 Minn ... 557; Donnelly v. Brooklyn City Ry. Co., 109 N.Y. 16; ... Chicago W. D. Ry. Co. v. Bert, 69 Ill. 388; ... Belton v. Baxter, 54 N.Y. 245; Winter v. Federal ... St. & P. V. P ... McClain v. Brooklyn City Ry. Co., 116 N.Y. 459; ... Barker v. Savage, 45 N.Y. 191; Belton v ... Baxter, 54 N.Y. 245; Davenport v. Brooklyn City Ry. Co., ... 100 N.Y. 632 ... In case ... of a collision between a street car and a private vehicle, ... ...
-
Dederichs v. Salt Lake City Ry. Co.
...U.S. 615; Elliott v. Railway Co., 150 U.S. 245; Booth on Street Railways, 312, 315, 317; Kelly v. Hendric, 26 Mich. 255; Davenport v. Brooklyn Ry. Co., 100 N.Y. 632; Fenton v. Sec. Av. St. Ry. Co., 126 N.Y. 625; Thompson on Neg., 415, 416. MINER, J. ZANE, C. J., and BARTCH, J., concur. OPIN......
-
Baltimore Traction Co. v. Helms
... ... running its car, in violation of the city ordinance, at the ... high rate of speed testified to, was the plaintiff guilty of ... such ... Kelly v. Hendrie, 26 Mich. 261; Scott v ... Railroad Co., 59 Hun, 456, 13 N.Y.S. 344; Davenport ... v. Railroad Co., 100 N.Y. 632, 3 ... N. E ... 305; Sheets v. Railway Co ... ...