Lynch v. Nolan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lynch v. Nolan

242 A.D. 844

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D. 844 (Lynch v. Nolan) 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

Lynch v. Nolan, 242 A.D. 844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover for personal injuries sustained as the result of a collision between an automobile and a standing trolley car in the State of Connecticut. Plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was riding as a guest in defendant’s car. Appeal by plaintiff from the judgment dismissing her complaint at the close of the case. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. We are of the opinion that the plaintiff proved facts within the Connecticut statute which required a determination by the jury. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper and Davis, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Seudder, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm upon the ground that the proof failed to show either heedlessness or a reckless disregard of the rights of others on the part of the defendant, but showed only ordinary negligence, and, therefore, there was nothing to submit to the jury.

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

Action to recover for personal injuries sustained as the result of a collision between an automobile and a standing trolley car in the State of Connecticut. Plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was riding as a guest in defendant’s car. Appeal by plaintiff from the judgment dismissing her complaint at the close of the case. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. We are of the opinion that the plaintiff proved facts within the Connecticut statute which required a determination by the jury. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper and Davis, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Seudder, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm upon the ground that the proof failed to show either heedlessness or a reckless disregard of the rights of others on the part of the defendant, but showed only ordinary negligence, and, therefore, there was nothing to submit to the jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D. 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-nolan-nyappdiv-1934.