Schmidt v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schmidt v. Hertz Corp.

39 A.D.2d 778, 332 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4464

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

DecidedMay 30, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 778 (Schmidt v. Hertz Corp.) 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

Schmidt v. Hertz Corp., 39 A.D.2d 778, 332 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, conscious pain and suffering, property injury and loss of services, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 4, 1971, against him, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of the evidence.. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact were presented on this appeal. In examining this record to ascertain whether there is any evidence from which a finding that defendants were negligent may reasonably be inferred (Lubelfeld v. City of New York, 4 N Y 2d 455, 460), we have concluded that a prima facie case was established and thus the ease should have gone to the jury. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that in a death action a plaintiff is not held to ais high a degree of proof as in a case where an injured plaintiff is able to testify at the trial (Schechter v. Klanfer, 28 N Y 2d 228, 231; Noseworthy v. City of New York, 298 N. Y. 76). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, conscious pain and suffering, property injury and loss of services, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 4, 1971, against him, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of the evidence.. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact were presented on this appeal. In examining this record to ascertain whether there is any evidence from which a finding that defendants were negligent may reasonably be inferred (Lubelfeld v. City of New York, 4 N Y 2d 455, 460), we have concluded that a prima facie case was established and thus the ease should have gone to the jury. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that in a death action a plaintiff is not held to ais high a degree of proof as in a case where an injured plaintiff is able to testify at the trial (Schechter v. Klanfer, 28 N Y 2d 228, 231; Noseworthy v. City of New York, 298 N. Y. 76). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 778, 332 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-hertz-corp-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack