Case Name: The New York Bread Co., Respondent, v. The New York City Railway Co., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-12
Citations: 46 Misc. 89
Docket Number: 
Parties: The New York Bread Co., Respondent, v. The New York City Railway Co., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 89–91

Head Matter:
The New York Bread Co., Respondent, v. The New York City Railway Co., Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
December, 1904.)
Collision—When question of negligence for the jury.
Plaintiff’s wagon being driven diagonally across defendant’s track was struck and injured by defendant’s car running in the same direction. It was shown that the driver had looked behind him before he left the curb and saw the car some distance to the rear moving at a moderate rate of speed. It was also shown that in order to cross the tracks the defendant’s wagon would only have had to travel a distance of from twenty to fifty feet. There was also evidence that the motorman failed to ring a bell.
Held, under the circumstances, the question of negligence was one of fact for the jury, not one of law.
(MacLean, J., dissented.)
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, eighth district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.
Henry W. Goddard and William E. Weaver, for appellant.
James H. Simpson, for respondent.

Opinion:
Freedman, P. J.
One of the plaintiff's wagons was standing in front of a store on the west side of Second avenue between Fifty-fourth and Fifty-fifth streets. It was facing south, and was quite near the southerly end of the block, viz., about forty feet north of Fifty-fourth street. The driver came out of the store, walked to the curb where the wagon stood, got upon the wagon and drove in a southerly direction diagonally across Second avenue. He intended to go east through Fifty-fourth street. After the wagon had proceeded a distance of from fifteen to twenty feet it was struck by one of defendant's south-bound cars, pushed against an elevated railroad pillar and injured, and for the damages occasioned by such injury this action was brought.
Plaintiff had judgment. It appears from the testimony that before the driver left the curb he looked north and saw that the car which struck him was then north of Fifty-fifth street " moving at a moderate rate of speed." The car struck the front part of the wagon. It further appears that in order to fully clear the defendant's track it would only have been necessary to traverse a distance of from twenty to fifty feet, and there was testimony to the effect that at the time the front wheels reached the track the car was from fifty to one hundred and twenty feet distant. There was also evidence from which it might be said the motorman rang no bell. Under the circumstances the questions of negligence were those of fact and not of law; the facts in the case are materially different from those in Cosgrove v. Interurban St. R. Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 885, and Groening v. Interurban St. R. Co., 88 id. 355.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Gildersleeve. J., concurs.