Sherman v. Pullman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sherman v. Pullman

29 A.D.2d 1044, 289 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4319

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

DecidedApril 4, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 1044 (Sherman v. Pullman) 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

Sherman v. Pullman, 29 A.D.2d 1044, 289 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Memorandum: In this ease the two occupants of defendant’s automobile were killed in the accident. Plaintiff’s proof that after the accident, her intestate was in the middle of the front seat with the right car door jammed shut while the left door was open and defendant’s son was lying on the pavement outside the ear presented a question for the jury on the issue of whether or not defendant’s son was the operator of the car. Proof that defendant’s southbound automobile was driven from the right hand shoulder of the highway, across the southbound lane, into the northbound lane where it collided with a truck made out a prima facie case of negligence sufficient to go to the jury to determine liability. (Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp. 17 N Y 2d 132; Czekala v. Meehan, 27 A D 2d 565, affd. 20 N Y 2d 686.) The trial court should have received the certificate of the death of plaintiff’s intestate and the testimony relating to the speed at which defendant’s automobile was operated. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Trial Term dismissing complaint in automobile negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Marsh, Witmer and Henry, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Memorandum: In this ease the two occupants of defendant’s automobile were killed in the accident. Plaintiff’s proof that after the accident, her intestate was in the middle of the front seat with the right car door jammed shut while the left door was open and defendant’s son was lying on the pavement outside the ear presented a question for the jury on the issue of whether or not defendant’s son was the operator of the car. Proof that defendant’s southbound automobile was driven from the right hand shoulder of the highway, across the southbound lane, into the northbound lane where it collided with a truck made out a prima facie case of negligence sufficient to go to the jury to determine liability. (Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp. 17 N Y 2d 132; Czekala v. Meehan, 27 A D 2d 565, affd. 20 N Y 2d 686.) The trial court should have received the certificate of the death of plaintiff’s intestate and the testimony relating to the speed at which defendant’s automobile was operated. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Trial Term dismissing complaint in automobile negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Marsh, Witmer and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 1044, 289 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherman-v-pullman-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack