Case ID: ad_144/html/0273-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rich, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ida Platoff, Appellant, v. Brooklyn, Queens County and Suburban Railroad Company and Welz & Zerweck, Respondents.
    Second Department,
    April 21, 1911.
    Railroad — negligence — collision at street crossing — proof raising question for jury.
    It is error for the court to dismiss the complaint in an action to recover for injuries received by a passenger on a trolley car which collided with a motor truck at the intersection of streets, where it appears that both vehicles were moving rapidly; that no signal was given by either and there was no effort of either driver to slacken speed although there was an unobstructed view.
    Appeal by the plaintiff, Ida Platoff, from a judgment of the. Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Brooklyn, in favor of the defendant, rendered on the 5th day of December, 1910, dismissing the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case in an action for negligence.
    
      William V. Burke, for the appellant.
    
      James W. Carpenter, for the respondents.
   Rich, J.:

Plaintiff’s injury was caused* by a collision between one of the defendant company’s trolley cars, in which she was a passenger, and a large motor truck owned and operated by the defendant Welz & Zerweck. The undisputed facts are that, as the car approached Monroe street on Reid avenue at full speed, the truck was rapidly approaching the street intersection on Monroe street. No signal or warning was given by either the car or truck in approaching this crossing, and no attempt was made to slacken the speed of either, though there was nothing to obstruct the view of the driver of either vehicle of the other. As the car was passing Monroe street and the truck turned into Reid avenue, they came together with a crash, throwing plaintiff to the floor of the car, in consequence of which she was more or less seriously injured. The complaint was dismissed upon the ground that no negligence was shown on the part of the . defendants. This was error. The ■ plaintiff had no difficulty in seeing the truck while it was in Monroe street, seventh-five feet from Reid avenue, and it would seem that by the exercise of reasonable care on the part of the motorman or operator of the truck — either of them — . the accident would not have happened. It was the duty of the trial court to submit the question of the negligence of the defendants •— one or both of them — to the jury. (Loudoun v. Eighth Avenue R. R. Co., 162 N. Y. 380; Stanbridge v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 135 App. Div. 38; Vogel v. Bahr, 130 id. 732; Tucker v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 131 id. 97; Hanley v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 127 id. 355; Hill v. Ninth Avenue R. R. Co., 109 N. Y. 239.)

The judgment of the Municipal Court must be reversed and a new trial ordered, cosiis to abide the event.

Jekks; P. J., Thomas, 1 Carr ánd Woodward, JJ., concurred.'

■ Judgment Of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.