From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bullock v. New York Central and Hudson River Rd. Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 12, 1915
108 N.E. 1090 (N.Y. 1915)

Opinion

Argued December 7, 1914

Decided January 12, 1915

Thomas J. O'Neill for appellant.

John F. Brennan for respondent.


We are of the opinion that the defendant owed the plaintiff the duty of reasonable care in the maintenance of its station platform and the approaches thereto, but we are also of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to show that the defendant violated the duty, or that the plaintiff, himself, was free from contributory negligence. The case being one in which the trial court should have granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, the Appellate Division acted within its power in making the disposition of the case which the trial court should have made. ( Middleton v. Whitridge, 213 N.Y. 499, decided herewith.)

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

WILLARD BARTLETT, Ch. J., HISCOCK, CHASE, HOGAN, MILLER and CARDOZO, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Bullock v. New York Central and Hudson River Rd. Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 12, 1915
108 N.E. 1090 (N.Y. 1915)
Case details for

Bullock v. New York Central and Hudson River Rd. Co.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM W. BULLOCK, JR., an Infant, by WILLIAM W. BULLOCK, His Guardian ad…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 12, 1915

Citations

108 N.E. 1090 (N.Y. 1915)
108 N.E. 1090

Citing Cases

Peterson v. Ocean Electric Ry. Co.

We are now asked to hold that the Appellate Division was without power to dismiss the complaint, and that the…