Case Name: MOORE v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-02-11
Citations: 102 N.Y.S. 636
Docket Number: 
Parties: MOORE v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 102
Pages: 636–636

Head Matter:
(52 Misc. Rep. 663)
MOORE v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
February 11, 1907.)
Street Bailroads—Operation—Collisions with Vehicles.
As between a street car and a vehicle in the streets of a city between crossings, the street car may be said to have a preferential, though not exclusive, right of way.
[Ed. Note.—iFor cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 44, Street Bailroads, § 193.]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Twelfth District.
Action by John F. Moore against the New'Yorlc City Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before GIEDERSLEEVE, MacLEAN, and AMEND, JJ.
William E. Weaver, for appellant.
E. J. McGuire, for respondent.

Opinion:
MacLEAN, J.
From the plaintiff's own testimony that it was only a matter of a second or two that he was on the track, before he was hit, that he had to be pretty quick, was not quick enough, and the motorman was a little quicker, coupled with the testimony of his coachman that they went in on the track ahead of one of the elevated pillars and turned out before they came to the other, it would seem that the plaintiff took chances and required the exercise, of greater care by the motorman than he was seemingly willing to exercise himself, and that, too, at a point where the defendant may be said to have had a preferential, although not an exclusive, right.
The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.