TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Petrie v. New York Central and Hudson River Rail. Co.

Eugenia E. Petrie, as Administratrix of Charles A. Petrie, Deceased, Respondent, v. the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant

Petrie v. N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River Rail. Co., 63 N.E. 1121 (N.Y. 1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 18, 1902
Judges
Parker
Citations
63 N.E. 1121171 N.Y. 6389 Bedell 6381902 N.Y. LEXIS 911
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered August 3, 1901, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Bartlett, Haight, Martin, Vann, Cullen and Werner, JJ.

Dissent — Parker

Parker, Ch. J.

(dissenting). Hnder the rulings of the trial judge now to be affirmed, notwithstanding the continuous ringing of a bell and blowing of a whistle from one station to another, a jury may be permitted .to find that .a railroad corporation is guilty of negligence in failing to give proper warning to a person crossing its tracks on a public highway miles from the last station from which the train injuring such person departed. The reasoning upon which the decision rests leads to this result: If all the warnings that the ingenuity of man may be able to devise be employed in a given instance, the jury may still find that the train negligently approached the crossing by failing to give proper warnings. In practical effect, therefore, it permits the jury to find negligence where there is none and no proof of any; indeed where all the evidence bearing upon the subject tends to prove freedom from negligence — a most illogical result of the decisions in actions founded upon the fault of a defendant, but one from which it is now evident the legislature can alone relieve.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1902: 11904: 11919: 11928: 119022026peak 1902 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Baker v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co.161 N.E. 445 (N.Y. 1928)
  2. Smith v. Lehigh Valley Railroad77 A.D. 43 (1902)
  3. Sipowicz v. Lehigh Valley Railroad189 A.D. 715 (1919)
  4. Diamond v. Planet Mills Manufacturing Co.97 A.D. 43 (1904)

Most recent

  1. Baker v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co.161 N.E. 445 (N.Y. 1928)
  2. Sipowicz v. Lehigh Valley Railroad189 A.D. 715 (1919)
  3. Diamond v. Planet Mills Manufacturing Co.97 A.D. 43 (1904)
  4. Smith v. Lehigh Valley Railroad77 A.D. 43 (1902)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list