Myers v. United Traction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Myers v. United Traction Co.

198 A.D. 958

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1921

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D. 958 (Myers v. United Traction 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

Myers v. United Traction Co., 198 A.D. 958 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event, on the ground that there is no legal evidence of permanent injury, and that the court should have so charged, as requested, and that it was error to permit the witness to swear that there was a reasonable probability that the injury was permanent. All concur, except Kiley, J., [959]*959dissenting. Woodward, J., concurs and votes for reversal on the further ground that the verdict is against the clear weight of evidence as to the negligence of the defendant and the freedom from contributory negligence of the plaintiff. Kiley, J., dissents and votes for affirmance on the ground that there was negligence of the defendant, but the questions referred to were not error, and that the plaintiff’s contributory negligence is not a defense in this action. (Magar v. Hammond, 183 N. Y. 387; Mapes v. Union R. Co., 56 App. Div. 508; Romer v. Long Island R. R. Co., 48 Hun, 352.)

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

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event, on the ground that there is no legal evidence of permanent injury, and that the court should have so charged, as requested, and that it was error to permit the witness to swear that there was a reasonable probability that the injury was permanent. All concur, except Kiley, J., [959]*959dissenting. Woodward, J., concurs and votes for reversal on the further ground that the verdict is against the clear weight of evidence as to the negligence of the defendant and the freedom from contributory negligence of the plaintiff. Kiley, J., dissents and votes for affirmance on the ground that there was negligence of the defendant, but the questions referred to were not error, and that the plaintiff’s contributory negligence is not a defense in this action. (Magar v. Hammond, 183 N. Y. 387; Mapes v. Union R. Co., 56 App. Div. 508; Romer v. Long Island R. R. Co., 48 Hun, 352.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D. 958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-united-traction-co-nyappdiv-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack