Bullock v. New York Cent. & Hudson River Rd. Co., 108 N.E. 1090 (N.Y. 1915). · Go Syfert
Search
Bullock v. New York Cent. & Hudson River Rd. Co., 108 N.E. 1090 (N.Y. 1915). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
How cited ↗
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William W. Bullock, Jr., an Infant, by William W. Bullock, His Guardian Ad Litem, Appellant,
v.
New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Jan 12, 1915.
Published opinion
108 N.E. 1090
1915 N.Y. LEXIS 1500
Thomas J. O'Neill for appellant. John F. Brennan for respondent.
<italic>Per Curiam</italic>..
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Per Curiam.

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 that 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., Hiscook, Chase, Hogan, Miller and Cardozo, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.