Dibble v. Whipple

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dibble v. Whipple

254 A.D. 805, 4 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7677

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

DecidedMay 13, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 805 (Dibble v. Whipple) 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

Dibble v. Whipple, 254 A.D. 805, 4 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7677 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant has appealed from a judgment, based on the verdict of a jury in plaintiff’s favor, entered in the clerk’s office of Schoharie county on the 20th day of April, 1937. The action is founded on negligence. Plaintiff’s intestate was a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by defendant. Because of the negligent operation of such car on September 20, 1932, the vehicle overturned and plaintiff’s intestate sustained injuries as a result of which he died on March 2, 1933. On this appeal defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish negligence on his part and that the damages awarded are excessive. The proof amply sustains the jury’s verdict. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffeman, JJ.

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

Defendant has appealed from a judgment, based on the verdict of a jury in plaintiff’s favor, entered in the clerk’s office of Schoharie county on the 20th day of April, 1937. The action is founded on negligence. Plaintiff’s intestate was a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by defendant. Because of the negligent operation of such car on September 20, 1932, the vehicle overturned and plaintiff’s intestate sustained injuries as a result of which he died on March 2, 1933. On this appeal defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish negligence on his part and that the damages awarded are excessive. The proof amply sustains the jury’s verdict. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffeman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 805, 4 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dibble-v-whipple-nyappdiv-1938.