Assalone v. Hazel

240 A.D. 701

This text of 240 A.D. 701 (Assalone v. Hazel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Assalone v. Hazel, 240 A.D. 701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

On appeal by Forsythe Bros., Inc., amended judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the court erred in refusing to charge that there was no proof that defendant Hazel was an incompetent operator. The negligence of both the appellant and Hazel was properly submitted to the jury. The distinction between the negligence of the operator and his incompetency to operate the crane is clear in law. Hazel’s experience was undisputed, and no evidence whatever was presented to establish his general in competency. In the circumstances it is impossible to say on which basis the jury’s verdict was predicated. We are, therefore, constrained to order a new trial. On appeal by plaintiff, the amended judgment [702]*702dismissing the complaint as against defendant Hazel is unanimously affirmed, with costs. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 A.D. 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/assalone-v-hazel-nyappdiv-1933.