In Boland v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co. (supra), Judge SEABURY, writing for the Appellate Term, said, on reversing the court below, which dismissed the complaint, that the issue of contributory negligence where a passenger fell into a space between the train and platform was a question of fact for the jury.
Summary of this case from Dunn v. MurrayNovember, 1919.
Present — Jenks, P.J., Rich, Putnam, Blackmar and Jaycox, JJ.
Appeal dismissed, without costs.
In Boland v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co. (supra), Judge SEABURY, writing for the Appellate Term, said, on reversing the court below, which dismissed the complaint, that the issue of contributory negligence where a passenger fell into a space between the train and platform was a question of fact for the jury.
Summary of this case from Dunn v. MurrayFull title:RICHARD M. BOLAND, Respondent, v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Date published: Nov 1, 1919
Roland v. Anderson, 282 S.W. 752; Tannerhill v. Railroad, 213 S.W. 822; Rose v. Wells, 266 S.W. 1015; Dunlap…
Szuch v. Ni Sun Lines, Inc.(3) The court erred in giving to the jury Instruction 2 offered by defendants. (a) Instructions are erroneous…