Case Name: Theodore Sipowicz, an Infant, by Boleslaw Sipowicz, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Appellant; Boleslaw Sipowicz, Respondent, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1921-04-19
Citations: 231 N.Y. 534
Docket Number: 
Parties: Theodore Sipowicz, an Infant, by Boleslaw Sipowicz, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Appellant. Boleslaw Sipowicz, Respondent, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 231
Pages: 534–534

Head Matter:
Theodore Sipowicz, an Infant, by Boleslaw Sipowicz, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Appellant. Boleslaw Sipowicz, Respondent, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Appellant.
Negligence — railroads—■negligent operation of train and -of gates protecting railroad crossing.
Sipowicz v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. (2 cases), 189 App. Div. 715, affirmed.
(Argued March 15, 1921;
decided April 19, 1921.)
Appeal, in each of the above-entitled actions, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered December 12, 1919, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The first action was to recover for personal injuries alleged to' have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant. The second action was to recover for a father’s loss of services and medical expenses by reason of personal injuries received by his son through the alleged negligence of defendant. Theodore Sipowicz, a boy eight years of age, while riding in a buggy driven by his brother, aged twelve years, was severely injured, at the crossing of William street with the defendant’s railroad just outside of the city of Buffalo, by reason of the said buggy being struck by one of defendant’s trains. The complaints alleged that the defendant negligently, carelessly and recklessly caused one of its locomotives to be operated over the crossing at a high rate of speed and failed to give proper or sufficient warning or "notice of its approach and that the defendant was careless in the operation of the gates protecting the crossing.
Thomas R. Wheeler for appellant.
Carl Sherman for respondents.

Opinion:
Judgment in each case affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Chase, Hogan, Cardozo,.Pound and Crane, JJ. Dissenting: His cock, Ch. J. and McLaughlin, J.