City of New York Municipal Court, 1895

Reed v. Third Avenue Railroad

Reed v. Third Avenue Railroad
City of New York Municipal Court · Decided November 15, 1895 · McCarthy
14 Misc. 458; 35 N.Y.S. 1115; 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 893

Counsel

Hoadly, Hmterbach <& Johnson, for appellant., M. P. O’ Connor, for respondent.

Reed v. Third Avenue Railroad

Opinion of the Court

McCarthy, J.

From a careful examination of the evidence-we think it is shown that'- the defendant was not alone negligent, but the plaintiff was guilty of eontributive negligence and, therefore, cannot recover.

It is unfortunate that the plaintiff should'be hurt, but since we must obey the law we are not permitted to exercise our sympathy.

Perhaps on a new trial the plaintiff may be able to explain the discrepancies.

It is unnecessary to cite authorities.

Judgment must be' reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Fitzsimons and Conlan, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to-abide event.

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