Caputo v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caputo v. New York City Transit Authority

86 A.D.2d 883, 447 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15533

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 86 A.D.2d 883 (Caputo v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Caputo v. New York City Transit Authority, 86 A.D.2d 883, 447 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), entered April 14,1981, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $40,000, plus interest, costs and disbursements. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted. Plaintiff’s proof showed that four boys illegally entered a bus through the rear doors, that they behaved in a rowdy, loud manner, cursing and watching everyone on the bus, and that the bus driver did not intervene, notwithstanding several requests from passengers. Plaintiff thus sustained her burden of establishing a prima facie case against the defendant (see Koch v Brooklyn Hgts. R. R. Co., 75 App Div 282). However, parts of rule 85 of the Transit Authority’s rules and regulations were improperly submitted to the jury for consideration. The rule is couched in language similar to that of a legal standard, and, as a matter of law, contains provisions which constitute a higher than reasonable standard of care. By submitting the provisions to the jury for consideration, the jury may have been confused as to the proper standard notwithstanding the limiting instructions as to the rule’s applicability. As a result, a new trial must be granted (see Danbois v New York Cent. R.R. Co., 12 NY2d 234). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), entered April 14,1981, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $40,000, plus interest, costs and disbursements. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted. Plaintiff’s proof showed that four boys illegally entered a bus through the rear doors, that they behaved in a rowdy, loud manner, cursing and watching everyone on the bus, and that the bus driver did not intervene, notwithstanding several requests from passengers. Plaintiff thus sustained her burden of establishing a prima facie case against the defendant (see Koch v Brooklyn Hgts. R. R. Co., 75 App Div 282). However, parts of rule 85 of the Transit Authority’s rules and regulations were improperly submitted to the jury for consideration. The rule is couched in language similar to that of a legal standard, and, as a matter of law, contains provisions which constitute a higher than reasonable standard of care. By submitting the provisions to the jury for consideration, the jury may have been confused as to the proper standard notwithstanding the limiting instructions as to the rule’s applicability. As a result, a new trial must be granted (see Danbois v New York Cent. R.R. Co., 12 NY2d 234). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 883, 447 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caputo-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack