Harris v. Burns

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Harris v. Burns

133 N.Y.S. 418

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 8, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 133 N.Y.S. 418 (Harris v. Burns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harris v. Burns, 133 N.Y.S. 418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinions

GERARD, J.

This action is to recover damages for injuries to the plaintiff’s automobile by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendants’ driver.

[1,2] Plaintiff testified that his automobile was standing in front of his office at No. 66 Pitt street, and that defendants’ wagon backed in near plaintiff’s automobile and unloaded some merchandise, and while in the act of driving away from the premises turned in such a way into plaintiff’s automobile as to cause it damage. The learned court below dismissed the complaint and remarked of plaintiff:

“Why didn’t he take the automobile and put it on the other side of the street. I do not think you have got a case. I will have to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that you did not prove a prima facie case. I do not think the defendant was negligent, and I think the plaintiff was guilty uf contributory negligence, so far as it appears from this record.”

Plaintiff had a right to have his automobile wait in front of his office, and the question of negligence and contributory negligence under these circumstances were questions for the jury.

Judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. ■

SEABURY, J., concurs.

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

GERARD, J.

This action is to recover damages for injuries to the plaintiff’s automobile by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendants’ driver.

[1,2] Plaintiff testified that his automobile was standing in front of his office at No. 66 Pitt street, and that defendants’ wagon backed in near plaintiff’s automobile and unloaded some merchandise, and while in the act of driving away from the premises turned in such a way into plaintiff’s automobile as to cause it damage. The learned court below dismissed the complaint and remarked of plaintiff:

“Why didn’t he take the automobile and put it on the other side of the street. I do not think you have got a case. I will have to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that you did not prove a prima facie case. I do not think the defendant was negligent, and I think the plaintiff was guilty uf contributory negligence, so far as it appears from this record.”

Plaintiff had a right to have his automobile wait in front of his office, and the question of negligence and contributory negligence under these circumstances were questions for the jury.

Judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. ■

SEABURY, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 N.Y.S. 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-burns-nyappterm-1912.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack