Case ID: nys_159/html/0894-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BIJUR, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SIGNET v. WERNER.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    June 26, 1916.)
    Municipal Corporations @=706(7)—Injury on Street—Automobiles—Question for Jury.
    In an action for personal injuries caused by being run into by defendant’s automobile at half past 6 on a rainy February night when plaintiff was about two steps from the curb, whether plaintiff looked only straight ahead before starting to cross the street, or looked both to the right and the left before leaving the curb, held for the jury.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1518; Dec. Dig. @=706(7).]
    <@=^For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & IndeSe*
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
    Action by Benjamin Signet against Charles Werner. From a judgment dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
    Argued June term, 1916,
    before GUY, BIJUR, and PHILBIN, JJ.
    Mark Aaron, of New York City,, for appellant.
    Cohen, Haas & Schimmel, of New York City (Isidore Cohen, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
   BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sues for damages caused by being run into by defendant’s automobile. He testified that at half .past 6 on a rainy February night, while crossing 110th street, the car ran into him'when he was about two steps from the curb. He further testified that the car was going fast and that he did not hear any horn.

While it is true on his cross-examination that he gave testimony from which the jury might find that he looked only straight ahead before he started to cross the street, there is ample evidence that .he looked both to the right and the left before leaving the curb. Knapp v. Barrett, 216 N. Y. 226, 110 N. E. 428.

It was therefore error to dismiss the complaint, and the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.