Jameson v. Payne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jameson v. Payne

246 A.D. 678

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D. 678 (Jameson v. Payne) 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

Jameson v. Payne, 246 A.D. 678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs, on the ground that the finding of the jury that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence was contrary to and against the weight of the evidence and on the further ground that the finding of negligence on the part of the defendant was against the weight of the evidence. Memorandum. The record is devoid of any evidence that the plaintiff exercised care in crossing the street. A statement of looking and failing to see what is in plain sight is not the exercise of care as required by law. All concur. (The judgment was for damages in an automobile negligence action. The order denied a motion for a new trial on the minutes.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs, on the ground that the finding of the jury that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence was contrary to and against the weight of the evidence and on the further ground that the finding of negligence on the part of the defendant was against the weight of the evidence. Memorandum. The record is devoid of any evidence that the plaintiff exercised care in crossing the street. A statement of looking and failing to see what is in plain sight is not the exercise of care as required by law. All concur. (The judgment was for damages in an automobile negligence action. The order denied a motion for a new trial on the minutes.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jameson-v-payne-nyappdiv-1935.