Case Name: Thomas Powell, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-03-20
Citations: 2 Silv. Ct. App. 9
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Powell, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Silvernail's Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 9–19

Head Matter:
Thomas Powell, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.
Court of Appeals,
March 20, 1888.
Affirming same case, 38 Hun, 610, Mem.
1. Negligence. Contributory.—The plaintiff, in an action for injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence, is bound to establish his own freedom from negligence contributing to the accident producing the injury of which he complains; and if he fails to do so, he is properly nonsuited.
2. Same'.—Where, in such an action, the plaintiff’s testimony showed that he approached the railroad crossing, driving at the rate of about ten miles an hour, that a strong wind was blowing and it was snowing very fast, and that he was acquainted with the crossing and knew that trains were frequently passing, the plaintiff was chargeable with contributory negligence.
Appeal from a judgment of the general term of the supreme court, affirming a judgment entered upon a nonsuit granted at the circuit.
W. T. Dunmore, for appellant.
J. Thomas Spriggs, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff was bound to establish his own freedom from negligence contributing to the accident causing the injury of which he complains. In this we think he failed, and therefore he was properly nonsuited.
According to his own evidence, which was more favorable to him than the evidence of the other witnesses, he approached and crossed the railroad tracks at the rate of about ten miles per hour, while a strong wind was blowing from the west, and it was snowing very fast, and his opportunity to see and hear was thus considerably interfered with. He knew that he was approaching a place of danger, and that trains were frequently passing at that place. He should have driven slowly and carefully, watching for the approach of trains, vigilantly using his eyes and ears to-protect himself from danger. If he had observed these precautions, under the circumstances dictated by ordinary prudence, we think he would have escaped harm.
The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.
All concur, except Danforth, J., who reads for reversal,, and Andrews, J., concurs.