The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-04-14
CITY RAILROAD ACCIDENTS.

Suit Against the Blocker street and Full
ton Ferry Line-The Plaintin Nom
suited-The Law to Nesiigence-Im-
portant Opinion or Judge Bockes.
SUPREME COURT, CIRJrIr-PART'I
Before Judge Bockes
APRIL 13-Michae, Kidney Us. the Bleeckr Street and
FaDon Ferry Railroad Company The plaintiff In this
action while crossing at the of Water and Beck
man streets on the eth Of September, 1885, about
twelve O'Clock In the day, knocked down by OF
the Of the defendants receiving serious injuries
the back The the time travelling rate
Of between four and Eve miles hour After the evi-
denco in the cx-Recorder Smith, counsel for the
company, moved to dismiss the complaint the ground
that negligence the part Of plaintiff concuEvely
proved. This motion was contested by Mr.. PERTH who
appeared for the plaintiff
Judge Bockes reserved his decision to the suit
and this morning at the opening Of he delivered
the following opinion, dismissng the complaint
motion for non-suit was made at the close Of the
proof on the part OF the paiaG was then under the
strong impression that the plaintiff had failed esab
sh his Of action but concluded best to hear the
whole granting permission to the defendants to
renew the motion after the evidence was all In The
motion for non-suit renewed II Is the undoubed
duty Of tho Court 10 grant the motion in II
plainly appears that verdict for the plaintiff would, be
unsupported by against the clear weight of evidence
The In this few, and, in the MAN, unds-
puted. The plaintiff In crossing the street. through
which the plaintiffs line of road struck by the
horses or one Of them attached car Knocked down
quite seriously injured lie was crossing at or near the
intersection OF two streets where there was a down
grade and struck eighteen twenty feet from
the lower crosswalk He says he vas going directly
the street at this point but the strength OF the
evidence is that he passing little diagonay This
ting discrepancy Is however, OF substantial import
ance. He says he looked both ways, but saw car At
this point approaching could be for the dis
lance Of blocks The accident occurred at midday
AT the time there we're numerous pedestrians aud
vehicles passing but there Is no proof that they In fact
The moving al about the rate Of four and
one-haf miles per hour the horses being slow tro
whose especial duty was to keep watch ahead to pre-
vent collisions ana accidents WHO the plaintiff
parentiy Inaen.'ys and unmndfai * danger Ho
shouted 70 him. whercupon the plaintiff started on
or irot and endeavored 20 cross the track before the
horses Tho brake Was immediately applied and the
stopped but not In time 10 prevent the collision, by
which me plaintiff knocked down, passed over by
three feet 1t is also shown that tho track al this point
and further up the grade was sometimes sandod
time Il was dry ana not sanod These are the facts Of
tie substantially, II not entirely, M they stand
clearly proved The law Applicable 70 'hs case has been
street. and the defendants had right 10 pass along
with their cars and neither would be responsible to the
sence Of all negligence wrongful In order there
FORE TO establish right of action In this case enough
dsnce tbat the injury was caused by The negligence Of
the defendants or their agents and that the plaintiff was
FREQ. from fault First them rs there proof sufficient TO
|
gagged in lawful employment and u was conducted ~
the ordinary means and In the usual way. For aught
ai ~ Ss apcpad or which ON the eme
gcncy could be put Practice was exercised and adopt
cd, The lookout gave the proper warning and u was
not the DEFENDANTS fault II not heard or heeded
the brakes Immediately applied and were In good
order II does not appear that anything was omit
done which the emergency demanded The most that
can be claimed ground Of negligence that the car
was being run At TOO great rate OF speed through
| thurOlQhiarc
this point The proof Is that the horses slow
trot, moyine a about four and half miles per hour
This not high speed There n proof that II
unusual speed even for great horoughfarcs In the city
Nor IS there thing 10 show that this rate Of speed
was al tnat particular locality OF on that occasion i'm
proper dangerous There proof that the way
track thsn obsructcd by crowd Of vehicles pc
destrians For aueht that appears the plaintiff the
only person the immediate vicinity OF the accident
| the time He bsyond the second crosswalk IN no
crowd with street free and open, ths point 10
himself and the at least there evidence TO the
contrary Certainly there no evidence the progress
of the car obstructsd that lis speed should then
have reduced below the rate at which had been
| accustomed with entire safety. On the whole
am unable 10 fasten On any act or on the ofns
sion Of any act the part Of the defendants " 'her
agents on which negligence law be fairly Justly
predicste Secondly did the plaintiffs negl gencc
tribute the INJURY do not propose TO elaborate
This branch Of the case At all SUI cannot refrain
from expressing very clear conviction that his own In
attention sud carecssness contributed 10 the injury "
not IN fact the sole Of his misfortune II II be
true, testified 10, that instead OF stopping when
~ the horscs his psrverse act not To say nesi-
sence ta tho direct and immediate Of the acct
dent But, IN any view II secms 70 me he was plainly
needless Of danger He well acquainted with the
locality and with the fact That the passed there very
the approaching car M, the proof docs not show that
the view Was oberucicd A. before remarked, N there
were vehicle, AIM, and ie'rsns passing a was u .r
there was any crowd Nor shown that he Was 50
situated IN any resr-c that he could MOI. with due
aud attention, have seen and avoided think tho
nv IN snt la No.