Franzese v. Mackay Trucking Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Franzese v. Mackay Trucking Corp.

10 A.D.2d 713, 199 N.Y.S.2d 514, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11439

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 A.D.2d 713 (Franzese v. Mackay Trucking 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

Franzese v. Mackay Trucking Corp., 10 A.D.2d 713, 199 N.Y.S.2d 514, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from so much of a judgment, entered on the verdict of a jury, as is in favor of respondent against appellant. Respondent presented evidence that he was driving a passenger automobile and had brought it to a complete stop on the roadway, that a few seconds later it was struck in the rear, that respondent was thus pushed forward so that his stomach struck the steering wheel, and that as a result he suffered a bleeding duodenal ulcer and other injuries. Judgment insofar as appeal is taken reversed and a new trial granted as to the issues raised by the complaint and appellant’s answer, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The opinion of respondent’s medical expert was legally incompetent inasmuch as it was based (1) upon several assumptions of facts which were not proved, such as the assumptions that respondent was predisposed to ulcers and that he suffered a shock which might have affected his endocrine glands, which in turn might have precipitated the bleeding ulcer, and (2) upon the expert’s extrajudicial conversations with respondent’s attorney. Without this testimony there is insufficient evidence in the record to warrant the verdict. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from so much of a judgment, entered on the verdict of a jury, as is in favor of respondent against appellant. Respondent presented evidence that he was driving a passenger automobile and had brought it to a complete stop on the roadway, that a few seconds later it was struck in the rear, that respondent was thus pushed forward so that his stomach struck the steering wheel, and that as a result he suffered a bleeding duodenal ulcer and other injuries. Judgment insofar as appeal is taken reversed and a new trial granted as to the issues raised by the complaint and appellant’s answer, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The opinion of respondent’s medical expert was legally incompetent inasmuch as it was based (1) upon several assumptions of facts which were not proved, such as the assumptions that respondent was predisposed to ulcers and that he suffered a shock which might have affected his endocrine glands, which in turn might have precipitated the bleeding ulcer, and (2) upon the expert’s extrajudicial conversations with respondent’s attorney. Without this testimony there is insufficient evidence in the record to warrant the verdict. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 713, 199 N.Y.S.2d 514, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franzese-v-mackay-trucking-corp-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack