Case Name: Clara Ottendorff, as Administratrix, etc., of Johann Phillip Ottendorff, Deceased, Respondent, v. James Willis, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-07
Citations: 87 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 262
Docket Number: 
Parties: Clara Ottendorff, as Administratrix, etc., of Johann Phillip Ottendorff, Deceased, Respondent, v. James Willis, Appellant.
Judges: CunnifiN, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 87
Pages: 262–266

Head Matter:
Clara Ottendorff, as Administratrix, etc., of Johann Phillip Ottendorff, Deceased, Respondent, v. James Willis, Appellant.
Pedestrian crossing a street — duty of a driver of a truck — the court may suggest the recalling of a witness.
If a pedestrian starts to cross a street while a truck is standing still his action in so doing is not careless, and the driver of the truck is hound to avoid him.
Where the driver of a truck sees a person crossing the street and observes that he is an old man and appears timid, his proper course is to delay starting his team until such person has passed in front of him. It is within the discretion of a trial court, after the plaintiff has rested his case, to suggest and permit the recalling- of a witness and the obtaining of further testimony from him.
(Dykman, J., distenting.)
Appeal by the defendant, James Willis, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 9th day of January, 1894, upon the verdict of a jury, -rendered after a trial at the Kings County Circuit, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 12th day of January, 1891, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Henry L. Seheuermcm, for the appellant.
Norman A. Lcrnlor, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Brown, P. J.:
The plaintiff's intestate while crossing South street, in the city of New York, was run over by a large track owned by the defendant and received injuries from which he died. The accident happened about midday upon the crossing leading from Koosevelt street ferry to the southwest corner of South and Koosevelt streets. The deceased was coming from the ferry and the truck was being driven to the dock of the Clyde line of steamships. The only witnesses who saw the accident and attempted to describe it were the driver of the truck and a man named Leo. The latter was called by the plaintiff, and when she rested her case it did not appear which party was to blame. At the suggestion of the court Leo was thereupon recalled and testified as follows: " This truck was standing still on Koosevelt street. This old gentleman was walking ahead when it was standing still. lie was about fifteen feet from the truck when it started; while he was walking ahead. When it started Ottendorff was walking right ahead of the truck. He was always in front of the truck. I should judge about eight feet at that time; he was in front of the truck, and the driver whipped up his horses. He was eight feet away from the truck — six feet from the truck. There was three crosswalks there, two straight ones and a slanting one from the ferry, and this old gentleman was talking on the slanting crosswalk towards Koosevelt street; then the truck was standing on the side of Koosevelt when he started ahead and struck the old gent. If the old man had stopped when the truck started ahead he would not have been hit. lie was not in line with the truck; he kept right ahead going ahead of the truck." " The driver of the truck brought his truck between OttendorfE and the sidewalk. There was more than fifty feet beyond where he could have gone clear. This truck was driving towards the downtown side on Roosevelt street; going towards the river side."
The driver contradicted this evidence and gave testimony which, if believed, entirely exonerated him from fault and placed the blame upon the deceased.
I think the case was for the jury.
If the deceased started to cross the street while the truck was standing still his action in so doing was not careless, and the driver oE the truck was bound to avoid him.
The driver testified that lie saw the deceased and observed that he was an old man and appeared timid, and his proper'course was to have delayed starting his team until the deceased had passed in front of him. The evidence, I think, permitted the conclusion that the driver was negligent and that the deceased exercised due care. ' It was within the discretion of the trial court to permit the witness Leo to be recalled, and the exception to that ruling presents no question upon this appeal. Whether Leo's testimony was worthy of belief was a question for the jury and not for the court.
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
CunnifiN, J., concurred.