Reiss v. Klein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reiss v. Klein

9 A.D.2d 792, 194 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5818

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.2d 792 (Reiss v. Klein) 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

Reiss v. Klein, 9 A.D.2d 792, 194 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, and for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury’s verdict in favor of respondents. Respondent Hermine Reiss, then an infant, was injured while a guest in appellants’ motor vehicle which collided with another motor vehicle in the State of Massachusetts. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Under established decisions of the State of Massachusetts, a guest may recover from his host only upon proof of gross negligence. (Lefeave [793]*793v. Ascher, 292 Mass. 336; Altman V. Aronson, 231 Mass. 588; Massalettó V. Fitzroy, 228 Mass. 487.) In our opinion, the facts warranted a finding of gross negligence. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Wenzel and Ughetta, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint on the ground that a sudden, single, precipitate act does not per se constitute “gross negligence ”, which has been defined as “more than a mere want of due care ” (Desroches v. Holland, 285 Mass. 495, 498).

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, and for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury’s verdict in favor of respondents. Respondent Hermine Reiss, then an infant, was injured while a guest in appellants’ motor vehicle which collided with another motor vehicle in the State of Massachusetts. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Under established decisions of the State of Massachusetts, a guest may recover from his host only upon proof of gross negligence. (Lefeave [793]*793v. Ascher, 292 Mass. 336; Altman V. Aronson, 231 Mass. 588; Massalettó V. Fitzroy, 228 Mass. 487.) In our opinion, the facts warranted a finding of gross negligence. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Wenzel and Ughetta, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint on the ground that a sudden, single, precipitate act does not per se constitute “gross negligence ”, which has been defined as “more than a mere want of due care ” (Desroches v. Holland, 285 Mass. 495, 498).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.2d 792, 194 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reiss-v-klein-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack