Majority
p. 466KELLEHER v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. February 4, 1907.) Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, BLANCHARD, and DAYTON, JJ.
Headnote
Appeal—Harmless Error—Instruction Cured by Another.In an action for personal injuries received by the plaintiff in collision with defendant’s street car, any error in instructing that “the person first at the point of crossing has a prior right to cross, and the farthest away is obliged to pay some attention to that superior right,” was rendered harmless where the court, in a subsequent part of the charge, properly stated the law as to contributory negligence.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 3, Appeal and Error, § 4219; vol. 46, Trial, §, 718.]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.
Action by Dennis Kelleher against the Interurban Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
William E- Weaver, for appellant.
G. Washbourne Smith, for respondent.
This is an action brought to recover for injuries received by the plaintiff by reason of a collision with the defendant’s .street car. The defendant appeals from judgment for the plaintiff, on the ground that the court erroneously charged the jury that:
p. 467
“The person first at the point of crossing has a prior right to cross, and the farthest away is obliged to pay some attention to that superior right.”
Although this charge, under other circumstances, might well have misled the jury, and thus been reversible error, an examination of the entire charge shows that, in this particular case, it did not have this result. In a subsequent part of the charge the court properly stated the law as to contributory negligence.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.