Case Name: HILL v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-02-08
Citations: 62 N.Y.S. 596
Docket Number: 
Parties: HILL v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 62
Pages: 596–596

Head Matter:
(30 Misc. Rep. 440.)
HILL v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
February 8, 1900.)
Street Railroads—Collision—Contributory Negligence.
Plaintiff, who was familiar with a city street, and knew that the cara were frequently passing and repassing thereon, drove along a street-railway track at night for a distance of 300 feet, without looking behind him, and was overtaken by one of defendant’s cars, which struck his wagon, and injured his horse and wagon. Held, that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Eighth district.
Action by Valentine J. Hill against the Metropolitan Street-Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant ■appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEVEN-TRITT, JJ.
Henry A.. Robinson, for appellant.
■George W. Gibbons and D. T. Kimball, for respondent.

Opinion:
MacLEAN, J.
The plaintiff, while driving westerly along the west-bound track of defendant's line on Twenty-Third street, between 10 and 11 o'clock at night, was overtaken by one of defendant's cars, which struck his wagon, injuring it and the horse, and for these injuries the plaintiff brought this action. According to his own testimony, he had driven along that track for some 300 feet, was familiar with the locality, and knew that cars were passing and repassing there very frequently. His use of the track was liable to a lawful interruption from a party having the right to an unobstructed way, and exercising that right for the public good in part. It was his duty not only to avoid collision, but also to cause no needless delay to the defendant, and he might not wait to hear a signal of the approach of a car, but he had needs at intervals to look backward for it. Adolph v. Railroad Co., 76 N. Y. 530, 537. This he did not do, and so the judgment in his favor must be reversed.
Judgment reversed, ánd a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
FREEDMAN, P. J., concurs. LEVENTRITT, J., takes no part.