Hawkes v. Goll

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hawkes v. Goll

256 A.D. 940, 9 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5546

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 256 A.D. 940 (Hawkes v. Goll) 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

Hawkes v. Goll, 256 A.D. 940, 9 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff’s intestate, walking north on the west side of the Albany Post Road, was struck by a car traveling south, operated by the defendant Farrell, and thrown over to the easterly side of the highway. Within two or three minutes a car owned and operated by the appellant Goll came along traveling north and ran over the prostrate form of the plaintiff’s intestate, dragging the body under the chassis of the ear. As the result of his injuries the plaintiff’s intestate died within an hour. There could be no evidence upon which the jury could base a finding of the nature of the injuries inflicted by the first car as distinguished from those inflicted by the second car. The ease was submitted to the jury upon the theory that if both defendants were negligent they were jointly and severally liable. While the wrongful acts of the two defendants were not precisely concurrent in point of time, the defendants may nevertheless be joint tort feasors where, as here, their several acts of neglect concurred in producing the injury. (Musgrave v. Williams, 239 App. Div. 802; Slater v. Mersereau, 64 N. Y. 138; Brush v. Lindsay, 210 App. Div. 361; Floun v. Birger, [Mo. App.] 296 S. W. 203; Bauch v. Southern California Gas Co., 96 Cal. App. 250; 273 P. 1111; Owens v. Cerullo, 9 N. J. Misc. 776; 155 Atl. 759; Browner v. Hooper, 151 Md. 579; 135 A. 420; 1 Thompson on Negligence [2d ed.], § 75; 1 Shearman & Redfield on Negligence [6th ed], § 31.) It is no defense to this appellant that defendant Farrell’s negligence concurred in the result. (3 Cooley on Torts [4th ed.], § 529; Floun v. Birger, supra.) We have examined the claimed exceptions to the charge and the refusals to charge as requested by the appellant and find no reversible error therein. Judgment and order against appellant Goll unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Close, JJ.

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

The plaintiff’s intestate, walking north on the west side of the Albany Post Road, was struck by a car traveling south, operated by the defendant Farrell, and thrown over to the easterly side of the highway. Within two or three minutes a car owned and operated by the appellant Goll came along traveling north and ran over the prostrate form of the plaintiff’s intestate, dragging the body under the chassis of the ear. As the result of his injuries the plaintiff’s intestate died within an hour. There could be no evidence upon which the jury could base a finding of the nature of the injuries inflicted by the first car as distinguished from those inflicted by the second car. The ease was submitted to the jury upon the theory that if both defendants were negligent they were jointly and severally liable. While the wrongful acts of the two defendants were not precisely concurrent in point of time, the defendants may nevertheless be joint tort feasors where, as here, their several acts of neglect concurred in producing the injury. (Musgrave v. Williams, 239 App. Div. 802; Slater v. Mersereau, 64 N. Y. 138; Brush v. Lindsay, 210 App. Div. 361; Floun v. Birger, [Mo. App.] 296 S. W. 203; Bauch v. Southern California Gas Co., 96 Cal. App. 250; 273 P. 1111; Owens v. Cerullo, 9 N. J. Misc. 776; 155 Atl. 759; Browner v. Hooper, 151 Md. 579; 135 A. 420; 1 Thompson on Negligence [2d ed.], § 75; 1 Shearman & Redfield on Negligence [6th ed], § 31.) It is no defense to this appellant that defendant Farrell’s negligence concurred in the result. (3 Cooley on Torts [4th ed.], § 529; Floun v. Birger, supra.) We have examined the claimed exceptions to the charge and the refusals to charge as requested by the appellant and find no reversible error therein. Judgment and order against appellant Goll unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 940, 9 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkes-v-goll-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack