Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Pechesky v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. 62 N.Y.S. 478

← Cases

Pechesky v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

62 N.Y.S. 478 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1900-02-08 English

Delivered by FREEDMAN, P. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 478
(30 Misc. Rep. 432.)
PECHESKY v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
February 8, 1900.)

Headnote

Negligence—Driving in Front op Street Car.
Where plaintiff saw a street car approaching about 250 feet away, and drove on the track in front of it for a considerable distance, making no attempt to observe its approach, and his wagon was struck by the car as he was turning off the track, he was guilty of negligence.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Second district.
Action by Morris Pechesky against the Metropolitan Street-Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEVEN-TRITT, JJ.
Henry A. Robinson, for appellant.
Isaac Marks, for respondent.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover for personal injuries, and damages to his horse and wagon, occasioned by a collision with one of the defendant’s cars. The plaintiff was driving a covered wagon, and, coming out of Delaney street, drove a short distance up the Bowery, in the direction of Spring street, intending to cross the Bowery from east to west. As he was driving out of Delaney street he saw a car at Broome street coming up town, at' a distance of about 250 feet away. After proceeding northerly upon the track of the approaching car for some distance, he turned west; and, as a portion of his wagon got off the car track, it was struck by the car, and the injuries complained of were received. There was no testimony to show that from the time the plaintiff went upon the car tracks at or near Delaney street, and then saw the car near Broome street, that he again looked, or made any attempt to observe the approaching car. He voluntarily placed himself in a dangerous position by going upon the track, conscious of the approach of a car, and thereafter relied wholly upon the vigilance of the employés of the defendant to enable him to escape danger. Under such circumstances, it" cannot be said that he was free from negligence. The judgment must there-" fore be reversed.

p. 479
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

MacLEAN, J., concurs. LEVENTRITT, J., takes no part.