Case Name: MULLER v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1903-06-22
Citations: 84 N.Y.S. 234
Docket Number: 
Parties: MULLER v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 84
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
MULLER v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 22, 1903.)
1. Street Railroads—Crossing Accident—Negligence—Contributory Negligence—Jury Questions.
Evidence in an action for injuries by the driver of a wagon struck by defendant street railway company’s car at a crossing held to justify the submission to the jury of the issues of defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence.
MacLean, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.
Action by Christian Muller against the Interurban Street Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.
H. A. Robinson (Arthur K. Wing and Wm. E. Weaver, of counsel), for appellant.
Joseph I. Green, for respondent.

Opinion:
GILDERSLEEVE, J.
The action is for While the plaintiff may have been somewhat confused on cross-examination, still his evidence shows that when his horses got onto the west track of defendant he saw the car a block away on the same track. He was driving slowly. He had his horses over the west track, onto the east track, when he looked again, and saw the car half a block away. Before he could get the hiiid part of his wagon over the west track, the car struck the wagon, and caused the injuries complained of. The evidence was such that the question of the negligence of defendant's servant in charge of the car and of the plaintiff's contributory negligence was a proper one for the jury. The charge of the learned justice was a correct statement of the law applicable to the case. We can find no reason for disturbing the judgment.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
FREEDMAN, P..J., concurs.