Case Name: Margaret Nodwell, Respondent, v. New York Railways Company, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1920-02-24
Citations: 228 N.Y. 547
Docket Number: 
Parties: Margaret Nodwell, Respondent, v. New York Railways Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 228
Pages: 547–548

Head Matter:
Margaret Nodwell, Respondent, v. New York Railways Company, Appellant.
Nodwell v. N. Y. Railways Co., 182 App. Div. 886, reversed. '
(Argued January 27, 1920;
decided February 24, 1920.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 28, 1918, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant. On the 15th day of March, 1916, plaintiff, respondent, while crossing Lexington avenue, from the northwest side to the northeast side, was run into and struck down by a north-bound Lexington avenue car operated by the defendant. She testified that on the night of the accident she alighted from a south-bound Lexington avenue car, at the northwest side of Lexington avenue and Twenty-third street, New York city, and desired to board a westbound Twenty-third street car for the purpose of proceeding to the West Twenty-third street ferry; that she proceeded to cross Lexington avenue from the northwest towards the northeast corner, and before so doing looked both north and south, after she alighted from the said car, and seeing no car approaching, she proceeded further, and when she was in between the north and south-bound tracks of the Lexington avenue division of the defendant’s railway she looked again, and seeing no car, proceeded further, and when she had stepped a short distance on the north-bound tracks and while in between the two rails of the north-bound tracks she saw a light, and then was struck by the said north-bound car.
B. H. Ames and James L. Quackenbush for appellant.
Joseph Speiser and Milton Speiser for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We think that in the absence of evidence of the layout of the tracks and the nature of the curve, if any, along which the defendant's car was approaching, the plaintiff failed to establish her freedom from contributory negligence.
The judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Pound and Crane, JJ., concur; Cardozo and Andrews, JJ., not voting.
Judgments reversed, etc.