From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 3, 1880
80 N.Y. 622 (N.Y. 1880)

Summary

In Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co. (80 N.Y. 622) this language is used: "When from the circumstances shown, inferences are to be drawn which are not certain and incontrovertible, and may be differently made by different minds, it is for the jury to make them."

Summary of this case from Forbes v. City of Jamestown

Opinion

Argued January 19, 1880

Decided February 3, 1880

E. Countryman for appellant.

Samuel Hand for respondent.



Per Curiam opinion for reversal and new trial.

All concur, except FOLGER and EARL, JJ., dissenting.

Judgment reversed.


Summaries of

Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 3, 1880
80 N.Y. 622 (N.Y. 1880)

In Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co. (80 N.Y. 622) this language is used: "When from the circumstances shown, inferences are to be drawn which are not certain and incontrovertible, and may be differently made by different minds, it is for the jury to make them."

Summary of this case from Forbes v. City of Jamestown

In Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co. (80 N.Y. 622) this language is used: "When from the circumstances shown, inferences are to be drawn which are not certain and incontrovertible and may be differently made by different minds, it is for the jury to make them.

Summary of this case from Swistak v. Erie Railroad Co.

In Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co. (80 N.Y. 622) the court said: "It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to show affirmatively that the negligence of the defendant was the sole cause of the death of the deceased.

Summary of this case from Woodworth v. N.Y. Central H.R.R.R. Co.
Case details for

Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Company

Case Details

Full title:JOHN HART, Administrator, etc., Appellant, v . THE HUDSON RIVER BRIDGE…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 3, 1880

Citations

80 N.Y. 622 (N.Y. 1880)

Citing Cases

Boss v. Providence Worcester R.R. Co.

Black, C.J., in Railroad Co. v. Aspell, 23 Pa. St. 147. In an action for negligence, it is incumbent upon the…

Woodworth v. N.Y. Central H.R.R.R. Co.

" In Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co. ( 80 N.Y. 622) the court said: "It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to…