Carkner v. Strokes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carkner v. Strokes

276 A.D.2d 886

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 886 (Carkner v. Strokes) 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

Carkner v. Strokes, 276 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Foster, P. J., Brewster and Santry, JJ., concur; [887]*887Bergan, J., dissents, in the following memorandum, in which Heffeman, J., concurs: Plaintiff Anna R. Carkner was a passenger in a motor vehicle of one of defendants which came in collision with a vehicle of the other defendant. The passenger was not responsible for the operation of the vehicle in which she was riding. Each driver attributed to the other acts which would ordinarily be regarded as negligent. While the collision does not, of course, necessarily mean either operator was negligent, it was the view of the Trial Judge who heard the case and knew the atmosphere of the trial far better than it can be reproduced in a printed record, that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. . There rarely should be interference with the judgment and discretion of the Trial Judge in such circumstances. I vote to affirm the order.

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

Foster, P. J., Brewster and Santry, JJ., concur; [887]*887Bergan, J., dissents, in the following memorandum, in which Heffeman, J., concurs: Plaintiff Anna R. Carkner was a passenger in a motor vehicle of one of defendants which came in collision with a vehicle of the other defendant. The passenger was not responsible for the operation of the vehicle in which she was riding. Each driver attributed to the other acts which would ordinarily be regarded as negligent. While the collision does not, of course, necessarily mean either operator was negligent, it was the view of the Trial Judge who heard the case and knew the atmosphere of the trial far better than it can be reproduced in a printed record, that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. . There rarely should be interference with the judgment and discretion of the Trial Judge in such circumstances. I vote to affirm the order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carkner-v-strokes-nyappdiv-1949.