From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. Union Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 18, 1907
121 App. Div. 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 1907)

Opinion

October 18, 1907.

Archibald Foote Clark, for the appellant.

Bayard H. Ames [ James L. Quackenbush with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Present — HIRSCHBERG, P.J., WOODWARD, GAYNOR and MILLER, JJ.


The best phase of the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses is that he was walking across 3rd avenue in Bronx borough near 180th street in the middle of the block after dark; that as he was about to step on the uptown track (the first he reached) he looked south and saw a car approaching at a medium rate of speed 60, 75, or 80 feet away; that as he got to the middle of this track he looked again and the car was so close that he jumped back but was hit before he could get off the track and lost a leg. There was no other vehicle in the vicinity, and nothing to prevent the plaintiff from seeing the car all the time. Having seen the car that distance away as he was stepping on the track, it was impossible for him to be struck by the car by the time he got to the middle of the track unless he negligently remained in the way. One witness says the head light went out as the car was going the said distance and then lighted up again; but if this be believed it makes no difference for the plaintiff says he saw the car.

The judgment should be affirmed.


Judgment unanimously affirmed on reargument, with costs.


Summaries of

Robinson v. Union Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 18, 1907
121 App. Div. 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 1907)
Case details for

Robinson v. Union Railway Co.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM ROBINSON, Appellant, v . UNION RAILWAY COMPANY OF NEW YORK CITY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 18, 1907

Citations

121 App. Div. 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 1907)
106 N.Y.S. 203

Citing Cases

Wecker v. Brooklyn, Queens County S.R.R. Co.

I consider that his failure to look intermediate the curb and the track was itself the cause of his stepping…