Kelly v. Goebbert

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kelly v. Goebbert

120 N.Y.S. 31

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 22, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 120 N.Y.S. 31 (Kelly v. Goebbert) 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

Kelly v. Goebbert, 120 N.Y.S. 31 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHMAN, J.

The plaintiff claims that he was injured,by falling into a hole in the defendant’s saloon. It appears from the testimony that the plaintiff visited the defendant’s saloon very frequently; that the hole had never been there before, but was due to some repairs that [32]*32the defendant was making.; that the workmen had temporarily stopped working; that the hole was not guarded, and the light was dim. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of negligence against the defendant, and it was for the jury to say whether the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence. “The instances in which nonsuits have been sustained by reason of the contributory negligence of. the plaintiff, or the party sustaining the injury, have been exceptional cases in which the court has adjudged that such negligence was conclusively established by evidence which left nothing, either of inference or of fact, in doubt or to be settled by a jury.” Massoth v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 64 N. Y. 524, at page 529.

The plaintiff further testified that he suffered pain at the time of the injury, and could not work for three weeks thereafter, and that his average earnings were $18 per week. He also attempted to show additional and permanent injuries by medical testimony; but it seems to me that the trial justice was correct in holding that these injuries were not sufficiently connected with the fall three years before to justify a submission to the jury, and the medical testimony and the other testimony bearing upon the alleged permanent injuries might well have been stricken out. The justice erred, however, in my opinion, in not submitting to the jury the question of the defendant’s liability for the injuries upon which there was competent testimony. He certainly erred in giving judgment upon the merits at the close of the plaintiff’s case. Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, p. 1561, c. 580), § 249; Bowen v. Farley, 113 App. Div. 767, 99 N. Y. Supp. 205; Merkin v. Gersh, 30 Misc. Rep. 758, 63 N. Y. Supp. 75.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

LEHMAN, J.

The plaintiff claims that he was injured,by falling into a hole in the defendant’s saloon. It appears from the testimony that the plaintiff visited the defendant’s saloon very frequently; that the hole had never been there before, but was due to some repairs that [32]*32the defendant was making.; that the workmen had temporarily stopped working; that the hole was not guarded, and the light was dim. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of negligence against the defendant, and it was for the jury to say whether the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence. “The instances in which nonsuits have been sustained by reason of the contributory negligence of. the plaintiff, or the party sustaining the injury, have been exceptional cases in which the court has adjudged that such negligence was conclusively established by evidence which left nothing, either of inference or of fact, in doubt or to be settled by a jury.” Massoth v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 64 N. Y. 524, at page 529.

The plaintiff further testified that he suffered pain at the time of the injury, and could not work for three weeks thereafter, and that his average earnings were $18 per week. He also attempted to show additional and permanent injuries by medical testimony; but it seems to me that the trial justice was correct in holding that these injuries were not sufficiently connected with the fall three years before to justify a submission to the jury, and the medical testimony and the other testimony bearing upon the alleged permanent injuries might well have been stricken out. The justice erred, however, in my opinion, in not submitting to the jury the question of the defendant’s liability for the injuries upon which there was competent testimony. He certainly erred in giving judgment upon the merits at the close of the plaintiff’s case. Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, p. 1561, c. 580), § 249; Bowen v. Farley, 113 App. Div. 767, 99 N. Y. Supp. 205; Merkin v. Gersh, 30 Misc. Rep. 758, 63 N. Y. Supp. 75.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 N.Y.S. 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-goebbert-nyappterm-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack