King v. Latham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King v. Latham

248 A.D. 933, 290 N.Y.S. 381, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8114

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 933 (King v. Latham) 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

King v. Latham, 248 A.D. 933, 290 N.Y.S. 381, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for damages to personal property and personal injuries, sustained as a result of the negligence of the defendant in the operation of his automobile on a public highway in the vicinity of Central Bridge, [934]*934N. Y. The defendant appeals on the ground that there is no proof of negligence on the part of the defendant to be submitted to the jury, and on the grounds that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and the amount of damages awarded is excessive. A question of fact alone was involved which the jury passed upon. The damages awarded are not so excessive as to require the judgment to be set aside. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury acted improperly in awarding damages. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — HUI, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Heffernan, JJ.

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

Plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for damages to personal property and personal injuries, sustained as a result of the negligence of the defendant in the operation of his automobile on a public highway in the vicinity of Central Bridge, [934]*934N. Y. The defendant appeals on the ground that there is no proof of negligence on the part of the defendant to be submitted to the jury, and on the grounds that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and the amount of damages awarded is excessive. A question of fact alone was involved which the jury passed upon. The damages awarded are not so excessive as to require the judgment to be set aside. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury acted improperly in awarding damages. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — HUI, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 933, 290 N.Y.S. 381, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-latham-nyappdiv-1936.