Reiss v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
Herman Reiss v. The Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
MacLean, J.
It appears from the statements of the plaintiff’s one witness of the occurrence, a friendly passenger on the seat with the driver of a large covered express wagon, that the plaintiff’s driver attempted to cross the car tracks of the defendant on Second avenue between the streets where the defendant’s vehicles had the right of way and when a car was only 100 feet distant. The driver, finding out his mistake, attempted by whipping his horses to get over in safety, but too late. The testimony exhibits no evi *199 dence of fault on the part of the motorman or other servant of the defendant, hut does show the imprudence of the driver of the plaintiff. Meyer v. Brooklyn H. R. R. Co., 9 App. Div. 79 . The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Freedman, P. J., concurs; Leveíttritt, J., taking no part.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.