Hogel v. Bee Line, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hogel v. Bee Line, Inc.

246 A.D. 833

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D. 833 (Hogel v. Bee Line, Inc.) 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

Hogel v. Bee Line, Inc., 246 A.D. 833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for personal injuries to plaintiff, a passenger, against defendant bus owner, whose bus collided with an automobile owned by the individual defendant. Judgments dismissing the complaint as against both defendants reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. The plaintiff established a prima facie case against both defendants. Whether or not the claimed prior inconsistent statements of the two witnesses on liability exculpated either defendant presented a question of fact for the jury. The jury were free to find that the testimony adduced on the trial represented the true version of the accident, rather than that set out in the prior statements, or that the prior statements contained information not in fact given to the investigator by either the plaintiff or the witness Goldman. Young, Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Action to recover damages for personal injuries to plaintiff, a passenger, against defendant bus owner, whose bus collided with an automobile owned by the individual defendant. Judgments dismissing the complaint as against both defendants reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. The plaintiff established a prima facie case against both defendants. Whether or not the claimed prior inconsistent statements of the two witnesses on liability exculpated either defendant presented a question of fact for the jury. The jury were free to find that the testimony adduced on the trial represented the true version of the accident, rather than that set out in the prior statements, or that the prior statements contained information not in fact given to the investigator by either the plaintiff or the witness Goldman. Young, Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogel-v-bee-line-inc-nyappdiv-1936.