Case ID: ny_59/html/0651-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anna Maria Calligan, Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
    (Submitted December 8, 1874;
    decided December 22, 1874.)
    In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for alleged negligence, causing the death of a person crossing its track in a city, it is not competent to give in evidence, upon the question of negligence, a city ordinance, limiting the speed of trains within certain specified limits, which do not include the place where the accident occurred.
    A traveller has no right to omit the exercise of proper care in crossing a railroad track, upon the assumption that a train is being run precisely in obedience to a city ordinance.
    This -was an action to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of Ann M. Luitz, plaintiff’s intestate, while crossing defendant’s track, upon a street in the city of Rochester.
    An ordinance of the city of Rochester, limiting the speed of trains within certain prescribed limits, which did not include the place where the accident occurred, was offered and received in evidence, under objection. Held, error; that it was incompetent, either as showing negligence on the part of defendant or upon the question of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the court laying down the rule as above.
    
      Edward Harris for the appellant.
    
      Charles J. Powers for the respondent.
   Per Curiam

opinion for reversal and new trial.

All concur, except Church, Ch. J., not voting.

Judgment reversed.