Case ID: nys_159/html/1136-12.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Golde PLOXIN, as administratrix, etc., of Louis Ploxin, deceased, respondent, v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS RAILROAD COMPANY, appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    November 19, 1915.)
   Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and complaint unanimously dismissed, with costs, upon the ground that the evidence establishes, as matter of law, that decedent was guilty of contributory negligence. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff’s case, tended to establish that the decedent, having seen the well-lighted car some 30 feet east of Lawrence street—that is, from 180 to 200 feet east of his position—approaching rapidly upon the further or northern track, started to walk across the street directly in front of the car, where he had a distance of fully 29 feet to go in order to clear the approaching car; that when he came to the space between the two tracks, and was about to step upon the further track, and then had about 6 feet further to go to be fully across, out of the way of the car, the car was only 30 feet away, still coming rapidly with unabated speed; that, without at all increasing his speed, he continued his walk and was struck as he was passing over the further rail, that is, after he had walked about 5 feet more; and that there was, throughout his passage from the curb, nothing to obstruct his view or distract his attention from the approaching car. Zucker v. Whit-ridge, 205 N. Y. 50, 98 N. E. 209. 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 683, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1250; Lofsten v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 184 N. Y. 148, 76 N. E. 1035; Peterson v. Ocean Electric Ry. Co., 161 App. Div. 720, 146 N. Y. Supp. 604; Weaker v. Brooklyn, Queens Co. & S. R. R. Co... 136 App. Div. 340, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1020. Jenks, P. J., and Carr, Stapleton, Mills, and Putnam, J., concur.