Marques v. Mossop Trucking Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marques v. Mossop Trucking Co.

241 A.D. 740

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 241 A.D. 740 (Marques v. Mossop Trucking 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

Marques v. Mossop Trucking Co., 241 A.D. 740 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. The verdict on the questions of negligence and contributory negligence was sufficiently sustained by the evidence. Very likely it was error for the trial court on its own motion to strike out the evidence of plaintiff’s physician that in his opinion plaintiff was now able to work. This evidence was given on the interrogation of plaintiff’s counsel and there was no objection. But this evidence bore only on the question of damages, and the moderate amount of the verdict is sustainable as based on the nature and extent of the injuries, pain and suffering, the hospital expenses and loss of earnings, whether plaintiff was able to work seven months after the injury or not. Therefore, the error was not prejudicial or substantial. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Tompkins and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. The verdict on the questions of negligence and contributory negligence was sufficiently sustained by the evidence. Very likely it was error for the trial court on its own motion to strike out the evidence of plaintiff’s physician that in his opinion plaintiff was now able to work. This evidence was given on the interrogation of plaintiff’s counsel and there was no objection. But this evidence bore only on the question of damages, and the moderate amount of the verdict is sustainable as based on the nature and extent of the injuries, pain and suffering, the hospital expenses and loss of earnings, whether plaintiff was able to work seven months after the injury or not. Therefore, the error was not prejudicial or substantial. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Tompkins and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D. 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marques-v-mossop-trucking-co-nyappdiv-1934.