Bibby v. Reid Bros. Express, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bibby v. Reid Bros. Express, Inc.

271 A.D.2d 944

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 8, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 944 (Bibby v. Reid Bros. Express, Inc.) 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

Bibby v. Reid Bros. Express, Inc., 271 A.D.2d 944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event, on the ground that the jury’s finding as to contributory negligence is against the weight of evidence and on the ground that it was prejudicial error to refuse to charge the following request: “I ask the Court to charge that if the jury find from the evidence that the deceased, by the exercise of reasonable care could have seen, or should have seen, the [945]*945trailer in time to have avoided the accident, then he was guilty of negligence and the plaintiff cannot recover.” All concur, Harris, J., on the law only, because of the refusal to charge as stated above. (The judgment as amended is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Dowling, Harris, MeCurn and Love, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event, on the ground that the jury’s finding as to contributory negligence is against the weight of evidence and on the ground that it was prejudicial error to refuse to charge the following request: “I ask the Court to charge that if the jury find from the evidence that the deceased, by the exercise of reasonable care could have seen, or should have seen, the [945]*945trailer in time to have avoided the accident, then he was guilty of negligence and the plaintiff cannot recover.” All concur, Harris, J., on the law only, because of the refusal to charge as stated above. (The judgment as amended is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Dowling, Harris, MeCurn and Love, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bibby-v-reid-bros-express-inc-nyappdiv-1947.