Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
James Morrison, Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant, 1875 — 63 N.Y. 643 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
James Morrison, Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant
63 N.Y. 643·New York Court of Appeals·1875·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
James Morrison, Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Argued December 8, 1875;
decided December 21, 1875.)
In an action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been occasioned by defendant’s negligence, the absence of contributory negligence may be made to appear as well from the circumstances of the case as from evidence directly establishing the fact. In weighing those circumstances it may be assumed that all creatures are desirous of preserving their lives and keeping their bodies from harm.
This was an action to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of Martin Morrison, plaintiff’s intestate.
The deceased, a boy about fourteen years of age, was driving a team and wagon on the highway at La Salle, Niagara county, across defendant’s tracks, when the wagon was struck by a passing work train and he was injured so that he died the same day. The principal question was as to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The court held (Earl, J., dissenting) that the facts and circumstances proved were sufficient to warrant the submission of that question to the jury. The propositions above stated appear in the opinion.
A. P. Laning for the appellant.
E. C. Sprague for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Folger, J.,]
Folger, J.,
reads for affirmance; Rapallo, Andrews and Miller, JJ., concur; Earl, J., dissents; Church, Oh. J., and Allen, J., not voting.
Judgment affirmed.