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.
John Gray, Appellant, v. The Second Avenue Railroad Company, Respondent, 1875 — 65 N.Y. 561 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
John Gray, Appellant, v. The Second Avenue Railroad Company, Respondent
65 N.Y. 561·New York Commission 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
John Gray, Appellant, v. The Second Avenue Railroad Company, Respondent.
(Argued January 7, 1875;
decided May term, 1875.)
This action was brought to recover damages alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence.
Plaintiff, who kept carriages for hire, had a carriage and horses standing at a public hack stand in the city of New York. Defendant’s track passed near. A snow-plow passing on the track, as was alleged by plaintiff, threw mud and snow into their carriage and frightened the horses who ran away, causing the principal injury complained of. Plaintiff’s driver in charge did not have hold of the reins but stood by the open door of the carriage reading a newspaper. Another driver near saw the snow-plow coming and held his horses by the head. Plaintiff’s driver did not observe the approach of the plow and took no precautions and the horses started before he could get hold of them. The court, on the trial, refused to nonsuit, but, in substance, held that defendant was only liable in case the jury found negligence on its part to the damage done to the carriage by the mud and snow which went into the open door. The jury rendered a verdict for six cents damages. Plaintiff appealed. Held, that plaintiff had no reason to complain; that the only error, if any, was in not granting the motion for a nonsuit. The court cited I/ynoh v. Nurdim, (4 P. & D., 672; S. CL, 2 B. 29); Illidge v. Goodmovn (5 C. & P., 190); Quarmcm v. Barnett (6 M. & W., 499); Barker v. Samage (45 N. Y., 191); Norris v. Kohler (41 id., 42).
A. G. Fox for the appellant.
Waldo Hutchins for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Reynolds, C.,]
Reynolds, C.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.