Cairns v. Matthews

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cairns v. Matthews

271 A.D.2d 886

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 886 (Cairns v. Matthews) 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

Cairns v. Matthews, 271 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by plaintiffs, who are husband'and wife, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the wife, and for medical expenses incurred and loss of services sustained by the husband, resulting from the fall of a ceiling in an apartment rented by plaintiffs from the appellant, judgment reversed on law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. It is our opinion that prejudicial error was committed by the court in charging, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, that the jury might take into consideration the failure of the appellant to call a witness, in the refusal to charge as requested by the appellant, and in connection with the instructions given to the jury at folios 450 to 454. Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Nolan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by plaintiffs, who are husband'and wife, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the wife, and for medical expenses incurred and loss of services sustained by the husband, resulting from the fall of a ceiling in an apartment rented by plaintiffs from the appellant, judgment reversed on law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. It is our opinion that prejudicial error was committed by the court in charging, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, that the jury might take into consideration the failure of the appellant to call a witness, in the refusal to charge as requested by the appellant, and in connection with the instructions given to the jury at folios 450 to 454. Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Nolan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cairns-v-matthews-nyappdiv-1946.