Englberger v. Hulse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Englberger v. Hulse

261 A.D. 921, 25 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8096

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D. 921 (Englberger v. Hulse) 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

Englberger v. Hulse, 261 A.D. 921, 25 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8096 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Action by an infant to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of the defendants in operating respectively a truck and an automobile in opposite directions on a public highway; and by the infant’s father to recover damages for loss of services and medical expenses. Upon a trial of the issues a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants. Judgment affirmed, with costs. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 106.) Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse and to grant a new trial for appellant, with the following memorandum: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1, a report made to the State Motor Vehicle Bureau by the driver of the car of defendant Hulse, was improperly received in evidence to the prejudice of appellant Gronholz. The driver was called as a witness for plaintiffs and the report was received at plaintiffs’ instance on direct examination. Part of the report consisted of the following words: “ Car No. 1 [that of defendant Hulse] traveling east over small hill — Car No. 2 [that of appellant Gronholz] traveling west over small hill — Both cars in center of road.” This was confirmatory of, and not inconsistent with, the testimony of the witness as to the position of the car he was driving. At the time the report was admitted, the witness had given no definite testimony as to the position of the ear of appellant. Section 343-a of the Civil Practice Act has no application. That part of the report reading “ too te [late] to avoid collision ” was also improperly received. The report also contains data, in effect, that the ear of appellant was on the wrong side of the road. It was error for the court to refuse to instruct the jury, as requested by appellant, that such statement was not evidence against appellant and that that part of the report should be disregarded.

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

Action by an infant to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of the defendants in operating respectively a truck and an automobile in opposite directions on a public highway; and by the infant’s father to recover damages for loss of services and medical expenses. Upon a trial of the issues a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants. Judgment affirmed, with costs. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 106.) Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse and to grant a new trial for appellant, with the following memorandum: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1, a report made to the State Motor Vehicle Bureau by the driver of the car of defendant Hulse, was improperly received in evidence to the prejudice of appellant Gronholz. The driver was called as a witness for plaintiffs and the report was received at plaintiffs’ instance on direct examination. Part of the report consisted of the following words: “ Car No. 1 [that of defendant Hulse] traveling east over small hill — Car No. 2 [that of appellant Gronholz] traveling west over small hill — Both cars in center of road.” This was confirmatory of, and not inconsistent with, the testimony of the witness as to the position of the car he was driving. At the time the report was admitted, the witness had given no definite testimony as to the position of the ear of appellant. Section 343-a of the Civil Practice Act has no application. That part of the report reading “ too te [late] to avoid collision ” was also improperly received. The report also contains data, in effect, that the ear of appellant was on the wrong side of the road. It was error for the court to refuse to instruct the jury, as requested by appellant, that such statement was not evidence against appellant and that that part of the report should be disregarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 921, 25 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/englberger-v-hulse-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack