Hoffmann v. Third Ave. Ry. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoffmann v. Third Ave. Ry. Co.

157 N.Y.S. 877

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 13, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 157 N.Y.S. 877 (Hoffmann v. Third Ave. Ry. Co.) 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

Hoffmann v. Third Ave. Ry. Co., 157 N.Y.S. 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The action is in negligence and to recover the damages to plaintiffs’ wagon arising out of a collision with one of defendant’s electric cars. Upon conflicting testimony the learned court decided that defendant was solely responsible for the accident, and the finding in that respect is not so against the weight of evidence as to call for a reversal of the judgment upon that ground.

[1,2] We think, however, that gross error was committed, not alone in the admission of testimony on the question of damages, but that the evidence of damage as finally submitted was wholly insufficient as the basis of any judgment. The claim for damages was for a total destruction of the wagon, and consequently the question to be determined upon that issue was the value of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The court permitted plaintiffs to testify, under objection and exception, that they paid for it three years before $200, and that since then they expended thereon for repairs $165. No attempt was made to show the reasonable value of the wagon when purchased, or in other words that the purchase price paid was its fair market value, nor that the amount paid, for repairs was fair and reasonable. Furthermore, there is not a scintilla of testimony showing the value of the wagon immediately before the accident.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with $30 costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

The action is in negligence and to recover the damages to plaintiffs’ wagon arising out of a collision with one of defendant’s electric cars. Upon conflicting testimony the learned court decided that defendant was solely responsible for the accident, and the finding in that respect is not so against the weight of evidence as to call for a reversal of the judgment upon that ground.

[1,2] We think, however, that gross error was committed, not alone in the admission of testimony on the question of damages, but that the evidence of damage as finally submitted was wholly insufficient as the basis of any judgment. The claim for damages was for a total destruction of the wagon, and consequently the question to be determined upon that issue was the value of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The court permitted plaintiffs to testify, under objection and exception, that they paid for it three years before $200, and that since then they expended thereon for repairs $165. No attempt was made to show the reasonable value of the wagon when purchased, or in other words that the purchase price paid was its fair market value, nor that the amount paid, for repairs was fair and reasonable. Furthermore, there is not a scintilla of testimony showing the value of the wagon immediately before the accident.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with $30 costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 N.Y.S. 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffmann-v-third-ave-ry-co-nyappterm-1916.