Guardino v. Terminal Cab Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guardino v. Terminal Cab Corp.

247 A.D. 759

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D. 759 (Guardino v. Terminal Cab 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

Guardino v. Terminal Cab Corp., 247 A.D. 759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate who, while lying in the roadway, was struck by a cab owned by the corporate defendant and operated by the other defendant. On reserved motion on the trial the verdict for plaintiff was set aside and judgment rendered for defendants dismissing the complaint on the ground that there was no proof of defendants’ negligence. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, the verdict reinstated, and judgment directed [760]*760to be entered thereon, with costs. There was evidence from which the jury could find that the operator of the cab was negligent and that plaintiff’s intestate was free from contributory negligence. Young, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Hagarty, J., vote for reversal and a new trial.

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

Action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate who, while lying in the roadway, was struck by a cab owned by the corporate defendant and operated by the other defendant. On reserved motion on the trial the verdict for plaintiff was set aside and judgment rendered for defendants dismissing the complaint on the ground that there was no proof of defendants’ negligence. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, the verdict reinstated, and judgment directed [760]*760to be entered thereon, with costs. There was evidence from which the jury could find that the operator of the cab was negligent and that plaintiff’s intestate was free from contributory negligence. Young, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Hagarty, J., vote for reversal and a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D. 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guardino-v-terminal-cab-corp-nyappdiv-1936.