Case Name: Wilhelmina Freidman, admr'x, App'lt, v. The Dry Dock, East Broadway and Battery Railroad Company, Resp't
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-12-06
Citations: 3 N.Y. St. Rep. 557
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wilhelmina Freidman, admr’x, App’lt, v. The Dry Dock, East Broadway and Battery Railroad Company, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 3
Pages: 557–559

Head Matter:
Wilhelmina Freidman, admr’x, App’lt, v. The Dry Dock, East Broadway and Battery Railroad Company, Resp’t.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed December 6, 1886.)
1. Negligence—Accident—Evidence.
The fact that an accident has occurred which resulted in the loss of life .is not per se evidence of the liability of a defendant who is a factor in the accident.
2. Same—Burden of proof.
The burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, and failing to establish his cause of action, the complaint is properly dismissed.
3. Same—When a matter of fact.
In a case wbere different persons might differ in opinion as to whether an act is or is not negligence, it is a matter of fact to be submitted to the jury (Per Van Hoesen, J., in dissenting opinion.)
Aaron Kahn, for app’t; Robinson, Scribner & Bright, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Larremore, Ch. J.
The learned counsel for the appellant urgently submitted that this case should have gone to the jury. In deference to his positive statement, the court took the case for further consideration. An examination of the record confirms the impression left upon the conclusion of the argument.
What question was presented by the evidence that should have been submitted to the jury ? An accident occurred which resulted in a loss of fife, but this per se is not evidence of defendant's liability. We must look to the testimony disclosed upon the trial. Mr. Sullivan, a witness for the plaintiff, testified as follows: "I saw the deceased put up his hand to the car to stop, and that time he was from ten to fifteen feet from the car, and he turned to get away, and the caí came down so quick that he could not."
Why a man in the exercise of ordinary discretion in front of a car from ten to fifteen feet could not have escaped it, is simply marvellous. The testimony of G-eorge B. Rowell and Charles G-. Bates lend no light in fixing the defendant's responsibility. The burden of proof was upon the plaintiff, and having failed to sustain her cause of action, we think the complaint was properly dismissed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.