Hyperlawhypertext legal database Reed v. Third Avenue R. 35 N.Y.S. 1115

← Cases

Reed v. Third Avenue R.

35 N.Y.S. 1115 Court N.Y. City Ct. Decision date 1895-11-26 English

Delivered by McCARTHY, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 1115
REED, Respondent, v. THIRD AVENUE R. CO., Appellant.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
November 26, 1895.)

Headnote

Action by Margaret Reed against the Third Avenue Railroad Company.
Hoadly, Lauterbach & Johnson, for appellant. M. P. O’Connor, for respondent.

From a careful examination of the evidence, we think it is shown that the defendant was not alone negligent, but the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and therefore cannot recover. It is unfortunate that the plaintiff should be hurt, but, since we must obey the law, we are not permitted to exercise pur sympathy. Perhaps on a new trial the plaintiff may be able to explain the discrepancies. It is unnecessary" to cite authorities. Judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.