Case Name: Clara Ottendorff, Resp't, v. James Willis, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-07-27
Citations: 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 859
Docket Number: 
Parties: Clara Ottendorff, Resp’t, v. James Willis, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 61
Pages: 859–862

Head Matter:
Clara Ottendorff, Resp’t, v. James Willis, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed July 27, 1894.)
Negligence—Question eor jury.
The facts, in this case, were held to render the question whether the driver was negligent one for the jury.
Appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Henry L. Schenerman, for app’lt; Norman A. Lawlor, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Brown, P. J.
—The plaintiff's intestate, while crossing South street, in the city of Hew York, was run over by a large truck owned by the defendant, and received injuries from which he died. The accident happened about midday upon the crossing leading from Roosevelt street ferry to the southwest corner of South and Roosevelt streets. The deceased was coming from the ferry, and the truck was being driven to the dock of the Clyde line of steamships. The only witnesses who saw the accident, and attempted to describe it, were the driver of the truck and a man named Leo. The, latter was called by the plaintiff, and when she rested her case it did not appear which party was to blame. At the suggestion of the court, Leo was thereupon recalled, and testified as follows: " This truck was standing still on Roosevelt street. This old gentleman was walking ahead when it was standing still. He was about fifteen feet from the truck when it started, -while he was walking ahead. When it started, Ottendorff was walking right ahead of the truck. He was always in front of the truck. I should judge, about eight feet, at that time. He was in front of the truck, and the driver whipped up his horses. He was eight feet away from the truck.—six feet from the truck. There was three crosswalks there,—two straight ones, and a slanting one from the ferry,—and this old gentleman was walking on the slanting cross-walk, towards Roosevelt street. Then the truck was standing on the side of Roosevelt, when he started ahead and struck the old gent. If the old man had stopped when the truck started, ahead, he would not have been hit. He was not in line with the truck. He kept right ahead,— going ahead of the truck. The driver of the truck brought his truck between Ottendorff and the sidewalk. There was more than fifty feet beyond where he could have gone clear. This truck was driving towards the down-town side on Roosevelt street,— going towards the river side."
The driver contradicted this evidence, and gave testimony which, if believed, entirely exonerated him from fault, and placed the blame upon the deceased. I think the case was for the jury. If the deceased started to cross the street while the truck was standing still, his action in doing so was not careless, and the driver of the truck was bound to avoid him. The driver testified that he saw the deceased, and observed that he was an old man, and appeared timid; and his proper course was to have delayed starting his team until the deceased had passed in front of him. The evidence, I think, permitted the conclusion that the driver was negligent, and that the deceased exercised due care.
It was within the discretion of the trial court to permit the witness Leo to be recalled, and the exception to the ruling presents no question upon this appeal. Whether Leo's testimony was worthy of belief was a question for the jury, and not for the court.
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
Cullen, J., concurs.