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.
Mary L. Haycroft, Respondent, v. The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, Appellant, 1876 — 64 N.Y. 636 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
Mary L. Haycroft, Respondent, v. The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, Appellant
64 N.Y. 636·New York Court of Appeals·1876·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
Mary L. Haycroft, Respondent, v. The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, Appellant.
(Argued February 8, 1876;
decided February 15, 1876.)
This was an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff in consequence of being struck by an engine of defendant at a street-crossing. (Reported below, 2 Hun, 489.).
Plaintiff, a girl sixteen years old, was passing along a street in the city of Buffalo, going south, across defendant’s tracks (five in number). She had crossed two of these tracks. She looked both ways, and saw a train approaching from the east, on the fifth track. She stopped for this train to pass, standing between the second and third tracks, within about a foot of the third. She had been standing thus a short time, and, about as the train she was watching passed, she was struck and injured by the tender of a locomotive backing up from the west, on the third track, which gave no warning, by ringing a bell or sounding a whistle, of its approach. The plaintiff was nonsuited at the Circuit, on the ground of contributory negligence. Held, error; that the question was one of fact for the jury.
A. P. Laning for the appellant.
C. D. Murray for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Miller, J.,]
Miller, J.,
reads for affirmance of order and for judgment absolute against defendant on stipulation.
All concur; Andrews, J., not sitting.
Order affirmed and judgment accordingly