Torts · MBE-tested

Annie B. Peters, Appellant, v. Long Island Rail Road Company, Respondent

275 A.D.2d 721·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1949·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

Annie B. Peters, Appellant, v. Long Island Rail Road Company, Respondent. [MAJORITY] The proof presented questions of fact in respect of defendant’s alleged negligence (Thompson v. New York Central & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 110 N. Y. 636, 637; Lamphear v. New York Central & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 194 N. Y. 172, 174), and plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence. (Carr v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 225 N. Y. 44, 47; Elias v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 226 N. Y. 154, 157; Twomley v. Central Park North & East Riv. R. R. Co., 69 N Y. 158, 161; McClain v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 116 N. Y. 459, 469; Knapp v. Barrett, 216 N. Y. 226 230; 2 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.], § 461, pp. 488-490.) The case of Wadsworth v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. (296 N. Y. 206, 213), is distinguishable. Here a “ hypothesis * * * based on the evidence ”, accepted by the jury, exonerates the plaintiff from the charge of contributory negligence. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston and Sneed, JJ., concur; Adel, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order and judgment.