In Berrigan v. N.Y. L.E.R. Co. (131 N.Y. 583) it was pertinently observed: "It is easy enough after an accident has occurred to suggest how it might have been prevented.
Summary of this case from Niles v. N.Y. Central H.R.R.R. Co.Argued January 27, 1892
Decided February 12, 1892
James H. Stevens, Jr., for appellant.
E.A. Nash for respondent.
O'BRIEN, J., reads for reversal and new trial.
All concur, except MAYNARD, J., taking no part.
Judgment reversed.
In Berrigan v. N.Y. L.E.R. Co. (131 N.Y. 583) it was pertinently observed: "It is easy enough after an accident has occurred to suggest how it might have been prevented.
Summary of this case from Niles v. N.Y. Central H.R.R.R. Co.Full title:JOHN J. BERRIGAN, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v . THE NEW YORK…
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Feb 12, 1892
) "The duty of the master," say the New York court of appeals, in Berrigan v. New York etc. R. Co., 131 N.Y.…
Ward v. Manhattan R. Co.In these circumstances to leave the question of the sufficiency of such rules to the jury is to permit them…