People v. Sackett
This text of 265 A.D. 867 (People v. Sackett) 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.
Opinion
Although the learned trial judge in his instructions to the jury charged properly on the subject of culpable negligence, toward the close of the charge he instructed the jury that “ every man who operates an automobile upon the highway should drive it as a careful, reasonable and prudent individual would, with a just regard and due respect for the other users of the highway,” and then stated: " In other words, he must, if he is to drive an automobile upon the highway, drive it in a reasonably careful and prudent manner.” This is the rule in a civil action, but is not applicable here. (People v. Angelo, 246 N. Y. 451.) Its statement may well have confused the jurors, leading them to believe that the defendant might be convicted for mere failure to use ordinary care. The trial judge, upon due request, declined to correct this erroneous charge. In the interests of justice, there must be a new trial. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Cars-well, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
265 A.D. 867, 37 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sackett-nyappdiv-1942.