Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909

Stanbridge v. Nassau Electric R. Co.

Stanbridge v. Nassau Electric R. Co.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 27, 1909 · Dayton, Seabury
117 N.Y.S. 94 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Michael F. Conry, for appellant., George D. Yeomans (Francis R. Stoddard, Jr., of counsel), for respondents.

Stanbridge v. Nassau Electric R. Co.

Opinion of the Court

DAYTON, J.

Both these railroad companies appeared by the same attorney and filed separate answers. The pleadings admit the routes of the two roads. The accident occurred through a collision of cars on each road. There is no dispute as to plaintiff's injuries. The court dismissed the complaint “for failure of proof of negligence.” On the pleadings and evidence plaintiff made out a prima facie case, at least sufficient to put defendants to some proof.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event, with leave to appeal to the Appellate Division.

LEHMAN, J., concurs.

Dissenting Opinion

SEABURY, J. (dissenting).

To sustain the judgment about to be rendered it is necessary to hold that the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur” is .applicable to this case. I do not think that this doctrine is applicable to this case, and I therefore dissent. Elliott v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 300, 111 N. Y. Supp. 358.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.