Peters v. Long Island Railroad

The proof presented questions of fact in respect of defendant’s alleged negligence (Thompson v. New York Central & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 110 N. Y. 636, 637; Lamphear v. New York Central & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 194 N. Y. 172, 174), and plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence. (Carr v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 225 N. Y. 44, 47; Elias v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 226 N. Y. 154, 157; Twomley v. Central Park North & East Riv. R. R. Co., 69 N Y. 158, 161; McClain v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 116 N. Y. 459, 469; Knapp v. Barrett, 216 N. Y. 226 230; 2 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.], § 461, pp. 488-490.) The case of Wadsworth v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. (296 N. Y. 206, 213), is distinguishable. Here a “ hypothesis * * * based on the evidence ”, accepted by the jury, exonerates the plaintiff from the charge of contributory negligence. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston and Sneed, JJ., concur; Adel, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order and judgment.