In Searles v. Manhattan Railway Co. (supra), the plaintiff recovered for an injury to his eye caused by a hot cinder which fell from one of the defendant's locomotives.
Summary of this case from Babcock v. F.R.R. Co.Argued February 3, 1886
Decided March 2, 1886
Edward S. Rapallo for appellant.
Lewis J. Morrison for respondent.
EARL, J., reads for reversal and new trial.
All concur, except DANFORTH, J., dissenting, and RAPALLO, J., taking no part.
Judgment reversed.
In Searles v. Manhattan Railway Co. (supra), the plaintiff recovered for an injury to his eye caused by a hot cinder which fell from one of the defendant's locomotives.
Summary of this case from Babcock v. F.R.R. Co.In Searles v. Manhattan Railway Co. (101 N.Y. 661) the rule of law is stated: "When the fact is that the damages claimed in an action were occasioned by one of two causes, for one of which the defendant is responsible and for the other of which it is not responsible, the plaintiff must fail if his evidence does not show that the damage was produced by the former cause.
Summary of this case from Carhart v. State of New YorkIn Searles v. Manhattan Railway Co. (101 N.Y. 662) it was said: "When the fact is that the damages claimed in an action were occasioned by one of two causes, for one of which the defendant is responsible and for the other of which it is not responsible, the plaintiff must fail if his evidence does not show that the damage was produced by the former cause.
Summary of this case from McCarty v. City of LockportIn Searles v. Man. R.R. Co., 101 N.Y. 661, it was held that the fact that a person on the street is injured by the fall of a red hot cinder from the locomotive of an elevated railroad, is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the company.
Summary of this case from Millie v. Manhattan Railway Co.Full title:ERASTUS B. SEARLES, Respondent, v . MANHATTAN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Mar 2, 1886
n overruling the demurrers and the judgment should be reversed. Smart v. Kansas City, 91 Mo. App. 586;…
White v. Spreckels" The true rule, in our opinion, is laid down in Searles v. Manhattan R. Co., 101 N.Y. 661, [5 N.E. 66], as…