Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. v. Kennedy

• Decision Date: 21 July 1897
• Citation: 82 F. 158
• Parties: METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO. v. KENNEDY.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

82 F. 158

METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO. v. KENNEDY.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 21, 1897

Henry A. Robinson, for plaintiff in error.

Wm. H Regan and James L. Bennett, for defendant in error.

Before PECKHAM, WALLACE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a writ of error by the defendant in the court below to review a judgment for the plaintiff entered upon the verdict of a jury. The action was brought to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff in a collision between two street-railway cars, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, which took place at the junction of Fourteenth street and Broadway, in the city of New York. The plaintiff was a car driver for the Central Cross Town Railroad. The tracks of that railway run east and west along Fourteenth street, and intersect the double tracks of the railway of the defendant, running north and south upon Broadway. The evidence upon the trial tended to show that as a car driven by plaintiff, bound easterly, approached the point of intersection, it was brought to a stop preparatory to crossing the defendant's railway; that at that time a car of the defendant upon the easterly track of its railway bound northerly, and approaching the point of intersection had also been brought to a stop; that the conductor upon the plaintiff's car, observing that the defendant's car had stopped, signaled the plaintiff to go ahead, and the plaintiff thereupon put his car in motion; that about this time a south-bound car of the defendant, upon the westerly track of its railway, passed the point of intersection thereby momentarily obstructing the view between the plaintiff's car and the north-bound car of the defendant; that, after the plaintiff's car had thus been put in motion, the defendant's north-bound car was put in motion, and proceeded at such a high rate of speed that it could not be stopped in time to avoid collision with the plaintiff's car as the latter was crossing the tracks of the defendant.

Error is assigned of the refusal of the trial judge to direct a verdict for the defendant upon the ground that the evidence did not show that the defendant was guilty of negligence, and did show that there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. We think the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to find that the defendant's car was put in motion after those in charge had observed, or should have seen, that the plaintiff's car was about to cross the tracks of the...