Devine v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
Opinion of the Court
This action was brought to recover damages for injuries to the person and property of the plaintiff, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant.
In October, 1896, the plaintiff was driving a horse and cart, loaded with dirt, from Nineteenth street, near Sixth avenue, to the East river. When he reached Broadway, he saw a southbound car approaching, and stopped and waited until that car had passed. When that car had passed, he started on, and for the first time looked around. He was at that moment “ getting in on the downtown track ” when he saw a north-bound car, twenty to twenty-five feet away, approaching “kind of swift.” He put up his hand to the brakeman to stop the car, but all too late apparently to avoid a collision. Hpon his cross-examination the plaintiff said, “ I was going across the track behind a downtown car that went away and I was going in upon the other side when I noticed the
At the place where the accident happened, the rights and duties of the parties were equal and reciprocal. When the plaintiff stopped to allow the south-bound car to pass, he was apparently in a position of security, and where he acted in a way to indicate that he would so remain at least and until the car coming up had passed. Seemingly without the exercise of any care on his part — there is no evidence that he had even looked in either direction —■ he started on, and suddenly discovered that he was between two perils, a car approaching from the north and one from the south. Under the circumstances of this case no greater duty was imposed upon the defendant than was required of the plaintiff, and the necessary inference is that the plaintiff failed to acquit himself of contributory fault, so that it was error to deny a dismissal of the complaint. It should be held, therefore, as was said in McFarland v. Third Avenue R. R. Co., 29 Misc. Rep. 121: “ There was no testimony going to show that the car was going at an unusual or excessive rate of speed, nor that any of the employees in charge of the car saw the plaintiff in time to have stopped the car.
“ The only carelessness that can be alleged against the defendant
The judgment of the General Term of the City Court, affirming the judgment of its Trial Term entered upon a verdict, should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
Ebeedman, P. J., concurring, on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to establish negligence on the part of the defendant.
Leventbitt, J., taking no part.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.