From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Needham v. Interborough R.T. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Nov 1, 1905
48 Misc. 522 (N.Y. App. Term 1905)

Opinion

November, 1905.

Charles A. Gardiner (F.H. Cunningham and T.L. Waugh, of counsel), for appellant.

Sharon Graham, for respondent.


There was no proof of negligence. All that is testified to is by the plaintiff that, as he walked toward the door, the train came to a "sudden stop" and he was thrown down. This is not sufficient to justify the inference that defendant or any of its servants was negligent. The complaint should have been dismissed.

BISCHOFF and FITZGERALD, JJ., concur.

Complaint dismissed.


Summaries of

Needham v. Interborough R.T. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Nov 1, 1905
48 Misc. 522 (N.Y. App. Term 1905)
Case details for

Needham v. Interborough R.T. Co.

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH W. NEEDHAM, Respondent, v . THE INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT Co.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Nov 1, 1905

Citations

48 Misc. 522 (N.Y. App. Term 1905)

Citing Cases

Norminton v. Interborough R.T. Co.

The car gave a sudden jerk and she was thrown and injured. The case of Needham v. Interborough Rapid Transit…

Goold v. New York, N.H. H.R.R. Co.

Accepting the principle of Black v. Third Ave. R.R. Co., 2 A.D. 387, as controlling, it follows that, unless…