Hollahan v. Metropolitan Street R. Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. Adams v. Union Railway Co.

    80 App. Div. 136 (N.Y. App. Div. 1903)   Cited 6 times

    The burden of establishing that the injuries were received through the negligence of the defendant rests upon the plaintiff at the commencement of the trial and there continues throughout the trial. ( Kay v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 163 N.Y. 453; Hollahan v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 73 App. Div. 164; Ludwig v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 71 id. 210.) This error requires a reversal of the judgment and that a new trial be granted.

  2. Szpyrka v. International Railway Co.

    213 App. Div. 390 (N.Y. App. Div. 1925)   Cited 11 times

    ( Tully v. New York City R. Co., 127 App. Div. 688; Keating v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 105 id. 362.) The case was not submitted to the jury on the theory that if the car left the track it was prima facie evidence of negligence; but assuming without deciding that the rule of res ipsa loquitur might apply here in aiding the plaintiff, the burden to establish negligence still remained with him. ( Slomka v. Nassau Electric R.R. Co., 191 App. Div. 727; Robinson v. Consolidated Gas Co., 194 N.Y. 37. See, also, Stevenson v. Second Ave. R.R. Co., 35 App. Div. 474; Hollahan v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 73 id. 164.)

  3. Ludinsky v. New York City Railway Co.

    53 Misc. 569 (N.Y. App. Term 1907)

    The court dismissed the complaint for failure of proof, and from the judgment of dismissal this appeal was taken. The defendant's counsel relies upon Hastings v. Central Crosstown R.R. Co., 7 A.D. 312, to sustain the proposition that the mere fact that a horse car is derailed is not of itself proof of negligence; but, in the more recent case of Hollahan v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 73 A.D. 164, the Hastings decision was referred to and it was pointed out that in that case there was evidence, not only of the derailment, but also of its cause, namely, that the driver, when in a dangerous situation, struck his horses with the whip. The Hollahan case was in many respects quite similar to the one under consideration, in that there the car jumped the track and left the rails at a time when it was going at a "pretty good rate" and at a point where there were tracks leading out from the main track into the doors of the car stables.

  4. Braun v. Union R. Co.

    115 App. Div. 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1906)   Cited 2 times

    Notwithstanding the suggestion in Hastings v. Central Crosstown R.R. Co. ( 7 App. Div. 312), that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply to horse street railways, we are of opinion that where, as distinguished from the plaintiff, the defendant has full charge of the rails, of the cars and of their mode of propulsion, the happening of an accident to the car upon which the plaintiff is a passenger, by reason of which the plaintiff sustains an injury, raises a presumption of negligence upon the part of the defendant; that the rule is one relating to carriers of passengers, and not merely to steam railroads. ( Hollahan v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 73 App. Div. 164; Palmer v. D. H.C. Co., 120 N.Y. 170, 174, 175; Cosulich v. S.O. Co., 122 id. 118, 127, 128, and authorities there cited.) If we are right in this proposition, and it is conceded that the case was tried upon this theory, the defendant offering evidence intended to show that it had exercised the degree of care which the law demands, it was for the jury to say whether the evidence of the defendant was sufficient to overcome the presumption. It is true that the plaintiff's evidence was in no wise controverted.

  5. Ramson v. Metropolitan Street R. Co.

    78 App. Div. 101 (N.Y. App. Div. 1903)   Cited 3 times

    The mere fact of derailment is not sufficient ( Stevenson v. Second Ave. R.R. Co., 35 App. Div. 479); but this together with evidence as to its cause, from which the inference might be drawn that the defendant's act or negligence produced it, is sufficient to present a question for the jury upon the subject of defendant's liability. ( Hastings v. Central Crosstown R.R. Co., 7 App. Div. 312; Pollock v. Brooklyn C.T.R. Co., 15 N Y Supp. 189.) A case somewhat similar to this is that of Hollahan v. Met. St. Ry. Co. ( 73 App. Div. 164). There a passenger standing on the front platform of a horse car was thrown to the street at a place where side tracks led into the defendant's stables and the car swerved to that side, and a recovery was upheld. Here, as there, the jury were not left to speculate as to the cause of the accident, but a reasonable and almost conclusive basis was established for the finding that the defendant was negligent in permitting the track to be and remain in a dangerous condition, and that such an accident should have been anticipated and avoided.