Christensen v. Pittston Stevedoring Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Christensen v. Pittston Stevedoring Corp.

283 A.D. 1088, 131 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6404

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

DecidedJune 21, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 283 A.D. 1088 (Christensen v. Pittston Stevedoring Corp.) 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

Christensen v. Pittston Stevedoring Corp., 283 A.D. 1088, 131 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

— Plaintiff, a freight handler employed by William Spencer & Sons Corp., was injured in the course of his duties when some pier doors fell and struck him, allegedly because the doors had been piled or stacked by defendant in [1089]*1089a negligent manner. The appeal is from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered on the jury’s verdict in the sum of $70,000. Judgment reversed on the law and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. During cross-examination of plaintiff’s foreman, defendant offered to prove that plaintiff’s employer was self-insured and that it and its employees were therefore interested in the outcome of the litigation. That proof was held inadmissible. In our opinion, such ruling was error requiring a new trial. Plaintiff’s witnesses, as to the happening of the accident, were all employees of William Spencer & Sons Corp. and evidence tending to show their interest should have been allowed. (Wisner v. Westchester Lighting Go., 283 App. Div. 821.) The question as to defendant’s negligence was close and it may not be said that the error did not affect the verdict or substantially prejudice defendant’s rights. The court has considered the questions of fact and has determined that it would not grant a new trial upon those questions. Holán, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Beldoek, JJ., concur.

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

— Plaintiff, a freight handler employed by William Spencer & Sons Corp., was injured in the course of his duties when some pier doors fell and struck him, allegedly because the doors had been piled or stacked by defendant in [1089]*1089a negligent manner. The appeal is from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered on the jury’s verdict in the sum of $70,000. Judgment reversed on the law and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. During cross-examination of plaintiff’s foreman, defendant offered to prove that plaintiff’s employer was self-insured and that it and its employees were therefore interested in the outcome of the litigation. That proof was held inadmissible. In our opinion, such ruling was error requiring a new trial. Plaintiff’s witnesses, as to the happening of the accident, were all employees of William Spencer & Sons Corp. and evidence tending to show their interest should have been allowed. (Wisner v. Westchester Lighting Go., 283 App. Div. 821.) The question as to defendant’s negligence was close and it may not be said that the error did not affect the verdict or substantially prejudice defendant’s rights. The court has considered the questions of fact and has determined that it would not grant a new trial upon those questions. Holán, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Beldoek, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 1088, 131 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christensen-v-pittston-stevedoring-corp-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack