Norton v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

262 A.D. 881
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 23, 1941
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 262 A.D. 881 (Norton v. Phillips Petroleum 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
Norton v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 262 A.D. 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Opinion

As a result of the explosion of inflammable gas, caused by the negligence of defendants, one Lina Garnsey was severely burned and died. Her administratrix sues to recover damages: (1) for the decedent’s injuries, pain and suffering prior to her death, pursuant to sections 119 and 120 of the Decedent Estate Law; and (2) for the death of the decedent, pursuant to section 130 of the Decedent Estate Law. The jury rendered a verdict of $10,000 on the first cause of action and $423.65 on the second cause of action. Defendants appealed from the judgment but subsequently paid $423.65 in partial satisfaction of the judgment. Defendants’ ■ sole contention is that the verdict of $10,000 for the decedent’s injuries, pain and suffering prior to her death is excessive. Judgment, in so far as it relates to the first cause of action (personal injuries, pain and suffering), reversed on the facts and a new trial granted as to that cause of action, with costs to abide the event, unless within ten days from [882]*882the entry of the order hereon plaintiff stipulate to reduce to $5,000 the amount of the verdict in her favor on the first cause of action; in which event the judgment, as so reduced, is affirmed, without costs. It is admitted that the decedent lapsed into unconsciousness two hours after the accident, and died without regaining consciousness. In our opinion the verdict of $10,000 for the decedent’s injuries, pain and suffering is excessive. Lazansky, P. J., Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Close, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment as to the first cause of action on the ground that the question as to the amount to be awarded for decedent’s injuries, pain and suffering is peculiarly one to be determined by the jury. In so far as the judgment relates to the second cause of action (wrongful death), it is unanimously affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Appeal from order dismissed, without costs. There is no order in the record. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ.

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

Related

Cook v. Erwin
30 A.D.2d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1968)
Bruck v. Meatto Trucking Corp.
20 A.D.2d 521 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
Kimmel v. Solow
10 A.D.2d 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Maceda v. Ellis Chingos Construction Corp.
22 Misc. 2d 269 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 A.D. 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norton-v-phillips-petroleum-co-nyappdiv-1941.