Coleman v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Coleman v. New York City Transit Authority

28 Misc. 2d 694, 208 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2118

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 1, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 28 Misc. 2d 694 (Coleman v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coleman v. New York City Transit Authority, 28 Misc. 2d 694, 208 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this one action brought by the wife to recover damages for personal injuries she sustained and by her husband to recover for the medical expenses and loss of services resulting from his wife’s injuries, a verdict for the wife and against the husband may not stand. The verdicts are clearly inconsistent and “ sound practice requires both verdicts to be set aside at once, without attempting by analysis of the evidence, or otherwise, to discover whether either should be allowed to stand.” (Gray v. Brooklyn Hgts. R. R. Co., 175 N. Y. 448, 450.)

Reversible error was also committed by the trial court in refusing the defendant’s request to charge. The court’s prior charge to the effect that the plaintiff ‘ ‘ must prove her case by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence ’ ’ was not coextensive with the defendant’s request to charge “ that the plaintiff, having the burden of proof, if the jury finds that the evidence is equally balanced in their minds, the verdict must be for the defendant.” By refusing such request, the jurors may have been misled to believe that the verdict need not be for the defendant if the evidence was equally balanced in their minds. The court should have charged as requested or should have explained what is meant by the fair preponderance of evidence. (Roberge v. Bonner, 185 N. Y. 265, 269.)

The judgment should be reversed as to Lois Coleman, and a new trial directed, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Concur—Hecht, J. P., Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

In this one action brought by the wife to recover damages for personal injuries she sustained and by her husband to recover for the medical expenses and loss of services resulting from his wife’s injuries, a verdict for the wife and against the husband may not stand. The verdicts are clearly inconsistent and “ sound practice requires both verdicts to be set aside at once, without attempting by analysis of the evidence, or otherwise, to discover whether either should be allowed to stand.” (Gray v. Brooklyn Hgts. R. R. Co., 175 N. Y. 448, 450.)

Reversible error was also committed by the trial court in refusing the defendant’s request to charge. The court’s prior charge to the effect that the plaintiff ‘ ‘ must prove her case by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence ’ ’ was not coextensive with the defendant’s request to charge “ that the plaintiff, having the burden of proof, if the jury finds that the evidence is equally balanced in their minds, the verdict must be for the defendant.” By refusing such request, the jurors may have been misled to believe that the verdict need not be for the defendant if the evidence was equally balanced in their minds. The court should have charged as requested or should have explained what is meant by the fair preponderance of evidence. (Roberge v. Bonner, 185 N. Y. 265, 269.)

The judgment should be reversed as to Lois Coleman, and a new trial directed, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Concur—Hecht, J. P., Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Misc. 2d 694, 208 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappterm-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack