Collins v. Troy Fifth Avenue Bus Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Collins v. Troy Fifth Avenue Bus Co.

275 A.D.2d 986

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

DecidedJune 28, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 986 (Collins v. Troy Fifth Avenue Bus Co.) 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

Collins v. Troy Fifth Avenue Bus Co., 275 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Brewster, Deyo, Santry and Bergan, JJ., concur; Heffeman, J., dissents, in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to affirm the judgment and order. It seems to me that the evidence of negligence of the bus company has been clearly established. This bus stopped at Fifth Avenue, then proceeded into the intersection of 104th Street and made another stop which resulted in plaintiff’s injuries. On the question of damages plaintiff was sixty-eight years of age. She was earning a substantial amount weekly. She has been unable to work since and will never labor again according to the medical evidence. Having that in mind I am not prepared to say that the damages are excessive. So far as the Judge’s charge goes I think that we can justify that under our decision in Barbato v. Vollmer (273 App. Div. 169). Then too as I read the record there was no exception to the statement of Justice Murray that defendant was charged with a high degree of care.

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

Brewster, Deyo, Santry and Bergan, JJ., concur; Heffeman, J., dissents, in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to affirm the judgment and order. It seems to me that the evidence of negligence of the bus company has been clearly established. This bus stopped at Fifth Avenue, then proceeded into the intersection of 104th Street and made another stop which resulted in plaintiff’s injuries. On the question of damages plaintiff was sixty-eight years of age. She was earning a substantial amount weekly. She has been unable to work since and will never labor again according to the medical evidence. Having that in mind I am not prepared to say that the damages are excessive. So far as the Judge’s charge goes I think that we can justify that under our decision in Barbato v. Vollmer (273 App. Div. 169). Then too as I read the record there was no exception to the statement of Justice Murray that defendant was charged with a high degree of care.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-troy-fifth-avenue-bus-co-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack