Keefer v. Daum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keefer v. Daum

262 A.D. 1044, 30 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7166

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 262 A.D. 1044 (Keefer v. Daum) 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

Keefer v. Daum, 262 A.D. 1044, 30 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7166 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, in an action for wrongful death, from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on a jury verdict, and from an order denying defendant’s-motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. The evidence sustains a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant and of freedom from contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff’s intestate. The latter’s intoxication did not constitute contributory negligence as matter of law in the circumstances, and defendant’s negligence was a proximate and the responsible cause of the accident (Fagan v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 220 N. Y. 301, 312; Leeds v. New York Telephone Co., 178 id. 118, 121, 122; Rider v. Syracuse R. T. Ry. Co., 171 id. 139, 150), and the jury were properly charged on that subject. The court, having charged the jury substantially as requested by defendant, was not required to adopt the language of the request. (Mullins v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 183 N. Y. 129, 140; Holbrook v. Utica & Schenectady R. R. Co., 12 id. 236, 244, 245.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ.

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

Appeal by defendant, in an action for wrongful death, from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on a jury verdict, and from an order denying defendant’s-motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. The evidence sustains a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant and of freedom from contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff’s intestate. The latter’s intoxication did not constitute contributory negligence as matter of law in the circumstances, and defendant’s negligence was a proximate and the responsible cause of the accident (Fagan v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 220 N. Y. 301, 312; Leeds v. New York Telephone Co., 178 id. 118, 121, 122; Rider v. Syracuse R. T. Ry. Co., 171 id. 139, 150), and the jury were properly charged on that subject. The court, having charged the jury substantially as requested by defendant, was not required to adopt the language of the request. (Mullins v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 183 N. Y. 129, 140; Holbrook v. Utica & Schenectady R. R. Co., 12 id. 236, 244, 245.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 1044, 30 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keefer-v-daum-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack