Van Houten v. New York, New Haven and Hartford R. Co. Hartford Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 18 October 1956 |
| Parties | , 138 N.E.2d 737 Richard VAN HOUTEN, an Infant, by Herbert Van Houten, as Guardian ad Litem, and Herbert Van Houten, Appellants, v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 286 App.Div. 875, 142 N.Y.S.2d 178.
Action was brought against railroad for injuries sustained by minor who, while crawling on top of railroad's freight car, came in contact with electric wire.
The Court, Eilperin, J., entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and the railroad appealed.
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, dismissed the complaint, and held that evidence was insufficient to sustain finding that men, who had threatened minor while he was on the freight car, had been acting on behalf of railroad, or that there had been a causal connection between the acts of such men and injuries sustained by minor.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals and made a motion for leave to prosecute appeal as poor persons and for assignment of counsel.
The Court of Appeals, 309 N.Y. 915, 131 N.E.2d 912, granted motion for leave to prosecute appeal as poor persons and for assignment of counsel.
The plaintiffs contended on appeal in the Court of Appeals that the Appellate Division erroneously held that proof of plaintiffs failed to establish a question of fact for the jury, and that judgment of the Appellate Division reversing the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs should be reversed, and that judgment in favor of the plaintiffs should be reinstated.
John M. Wilson, Brooklyn, Harry A. Spiegelman, Brooklyn (William R. Wilson and John M. Wilson, Brooklyn, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Edmund J. Moore, New York City (R. M. Peet, New York City, J. G. Pare, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
Judgment affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lo Casto v. Long Island R. Co.
...and the existence of the rule is not really disputed. A more recent case applying identical facts was Van Houten v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 2 N.Y.2d 739, 157 N.Y.S.2d 376. The testimony there was that the boy and another companion were atop a freight car; two men on the ground yelled '......
-
Kanaley v. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA & WESTERN R. CO.
...1 Lo Casto v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 1959, 6 N.Y.2d 470, 190 N.Y.S.2d 366, 160 N.E. 2d 846; Van Houten v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 1956, 2 N.Y.2d 739, 157 N.Y.S.2d 376, 138 N.E.2d 737; Van Houten v. Long Island Railroad Co., 2nd Dept. 1952, 279 App.Div. 1099, 112 N.Y.S. 2d 678; Carbone v. ......
-
Wolf v. Smith
...after a nonjury trial. Judgment affirmed, without costs. In view of the holdings in Van Houten v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co., 2 N.Y.2d 739, 157 N.Y.S.2d 376, 138 N.E.2d 737; Lo Casto v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 6 N.Y.2d 470, 190 N.Y.S.2d 366, 160 N.E.2d 846; Ziehm v. Chesapeake & Ohi......
-
Ziehm v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
...169 N.Y.S.2d 906, 147 N.E.2d 475; Van Houten v. New York, N.H. & H. R.R. Co., 286 App.Div. 875, 142 N.Y.S.2d 178, affd. 2 N.Y.2d 739, 157 N.Y.S.2d 376, 138 N.E.2d 737; Van Houten v. Long Island Railroad Company, 279 App.Div. 1099, 112 N.Y.S.2d 678; Ralff v. Long Island R.R. Co., 266 App.Div......