Martin v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Pennsylvania Railroad

20 A.D.2d 636, 246 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4496

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 636 (Martin v. Pennsylvania Railroad) 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

Martin v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 20 A.D.2d 636, 246 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment entered in plaintiff’s favor unanimously reversed on the law, and in the exercise of discretion, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant. In this action, brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, the burden of proving contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff is upon the defendant (Central Vt. Ry. v. White, 238 U. S. 507). The trial court refused a request to charge as to the defendant’s burden, stating that it had already so charged. A close examination of the charge indicates that no such instruction was given. The charge as given could have led the jury to believe that the burden rested upon the plaintiff. The rule of comparative negligence being applicable in this case, such erroneous belief on the part of the jury could have resulted in a verdict for a lesser amount than would have otherwise been found. In the circumstances, a new trial is required. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment entered in plaintiff’s favor unanimously reversed on the law, and in the exercise of discretion, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant. In this action, brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, the burden of proving contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff is upon the defendant (Central Vt. Ry. v. White, 238 U. S. 507). The trial court refused a request to charge as to the defendant’s burden, stating that it had already so charged. A close examination of the charge indicates that no such instruction was given. The charge as given could have led the jury to believe that the burden rested upon the plaintiff. The rule of comparative negligence being applicable in this case, such erroneous belief on the part of the jury could have resulted in a verdict for a lesser amount than would have otherwise been found. In the circumstances, a new trial is required. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 636, 246 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-pennsylvania-railroad-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack