Kleinhans v. Sun Oil Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kleinhans v. Sun Oil Co.

277 A.D.2d 940

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 940 (Kleinhans v. Sun Oil Co.) 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

Kleinhans v. Sun Oil Co., 277 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event, on the ground that the verdict of the jury is against the weight of the credible evidence. All concur, except Piper, J., who dissents and votes for affirmance in the following memorandum: This is the second trial. The jury believed the testimony of Mrs. Kleinhans and disbelieved Keller and I think the photographs in and of themselves negative at least that part of his story as to how the accident happened and are at least some evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. This is a death case and the plaintiff is not held to a high degree of proof. (Noseworthy v. City of New York, 298 N. Y. 76.) Two juries have found negligence on the part of Keller. I think the judgment should be affirmed. (The judgment appealed from is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Yaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event, on the ground that the verdict of the jury is against the weight of the credible evidence. All concur, except Piper, J., who dissents and votes for affirmance in the following memorandum: This is the second trial. The jury believed the testimony of Mrs. Kleinhans and disbelieved Keller and I think the photographs in and of themselves negative at least that part of his story as to how the accident happened and are at least some evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. This is a death case and the plaintiff is not held to a high degree of proof. (Noseworthy v. City of New York, 298 N. Y. 76.) Two juries have found negligence on the part of Keller. I think the judgment should be affirmed. (The judgment appealed from is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Yaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleinhans-v-sun-oil-co-nyappdiv-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack