From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Newcomb v. Frink

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 29, 1951
278 App. Div. 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Opinion

June 29, 1951.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Chenango County.


The action is one for alleged negligence. Respondent's automobile was following the car in which the plaintiff Rose Newcomb, and her intestate, were riding, and ran into the rear thereof. The foreman of the jury in announcing the verdict of no cause of action stated that it was "on account of the negligence of Mr. Newcomb" (intestate). We regard the finding of the jury in this respect as against the weight of evidence. Testimony which would have tended to impeach evidence given by the defendant's wife as to the speed of his car was erroneously rejected. It was also error to permit the defendant to place in evidence his own written report of the accident. Judgment and order reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial directed, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Foster, P.J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Coon, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 1028.]


Summaries of

Newcomb v. Frink

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 29, 1951
278 App. Div. 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)
Case details for

Newcomb v. Frink

Case Details

Full title:ROSE NEWCOMB, as Administratrix of the Estate of CHARLES NEWCOMB…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 29, 1951

Citations

278 App. Div. 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Citing Cases

Morini v. Murphy

In addition, it was error for the trial court to admit in evidence, as proof tending to establish appellants'…

Morini v. Murphy

In addition, it was error for the trial court to admit in evidence, as proof tending to establish appellants'…