Case ID: nys_117/html/0094-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAYTON, J. SEABURY, J. (dissenting).", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STANBRIDGE v. NASSAU ELECTRIC R. CO. et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    May 27, 1909.)
    Appeal from Municipal Court. Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District.
    Action by Frederick Stanbridge against the Nassau Electric Railroad Company and another. From a judgment for defendants; plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed, and new trial ordered.
    Argued before DAYTON, SEABURY, and LEHMAN, JJ.
    Michael F. Conry, for appellant.
    George D. Yeomans (Francis R. Stoddard, Jr., of counsel), for respondents.
   DAYTON, J.

Both these railroad companies appeared by the same attorney and filed separate answers. The pleadings admit the routes of the two roads. The accident occurred through a collision of cars on each road. There is no dispute as to plaintiff's injuries. The court dismissed the complaint “for failure of proof of negligence.” On the pleadings and evidence plaintiff made out a prima facie case, at least sufficient to put defendants to some proof.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event, with leave to appeal to the Appellate Division.

LEHMAN, J., concurs.

SEABURY, J. (dissenting).

To sustain the judgment about to be rendered it is necessary to hold that the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur” is .applicable to this case. I do not think that this doctrine is applicable to this case, and I therefore dissent. Elliott v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 127 App. Div. 300, 111 N. Y. Supp. 358.