Case Name: Max J. Roth, Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-06
Citations: 13 Misc. 213
Docket Number: 
Parties: Max J. Roth, Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 213–215

Head Matter:
Max J. Roth, Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.
(New York Common Pleas—General Term,
June, 1895.)
Before attempting to recross defendant’s tracks plaintiffs driver stopped the wagon by the side of the tracks to allow two cars to pass. The wagoh wa's loaded with trunks in such manner that he could not see on either side. Not hearing- any gong, he suddenly turned his horse upon the track and the wagon wa- struck by a car approaching from behind. Held, that negligence was predicable of the manner in which the wagon was loaded, as the duty of the driver to look for approaching cars before crossing the track was theeby rendered impossible.
Appeal from a judgment rendered by the justice of the Seventh Judicial. District Court in favor of the plaintiff.
Action for injury to personal property.
Henry A. Robinson, for appellant.
J. B. Sabine, for respondent.

Opinion:
Bischoff, J.
This action was brought to recover for injuries to plaintiff's wagon sustained when in collision with one of the defendant's cable cars.
The inevitable inference to be drawn from the plaintiff's evidence is that his servant, in charge of the wagon, was chargeable with contributory negligence; hence the recovery below is not to be sustained.
From the testimony of the plaintiff's driver it appears that after crossing the defendant's track, at the outer edge \of a curve, he drew up his wagon by the side of the track in order that two cars coming from opposite directions might pass him, it being his intention to recross thetracks., . His. wagon was loaded with trunks piled in such a manner that his view on either side was cut off, and he was able only to observe what passed in front.- This being his situation, he listened for the sound of a gong, the signal of warning given from the defendant's cars when deemed requisite, and, hearing no sound, he suddenly turned his horse upon the track and the wagon was collided with by a car approaching from the rear.
There was no evidence that the defendant's servants were required by law to continuously sound the gong when the track was unobstructed, and it was the duty of the plaintiff's driver to look for approaching danger before attempting to cross the" tracks.
In this case negligence was predicable of the manner in which the wagon was loaded, since thereby performance of the legal duty to observe the condition of the tracks was made impossible by the act of the party upon whom the duty was imposed.
The judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
Bookstaver and Pryor, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.