Sindlinger v. Bolton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sindlinger v. Bolton

240 A.D. 862

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 862 (Sindlinger v. Bolton) 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

Sindlinger v. Bolton, 240 A.D. 862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments reversed upon the law and the facts and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the court improperly charged the jury with reference to the effect of the signal [863]*863light upon the drivers of the cars in question. According to the charge, the effect of the signal light was made to depend upon the adoption of the light by the drivers of the cars, and the jury might have found that the defendant was not negligent even though he entered the intersection in the face of a red light. It was conceded by the parties that the signal light was in operation. The question of the adoption of the light by the parties was not in the case. Furthermore, prejudicial error was committed at folio 691 in permitting testimony to the effect that the plaintiff Joseph Sindlinger stated he had been in previous accidents. The court is also of the opinion that the verdicts are against the weight of the evidence. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Judgments reversed upon the law and the facts and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the court improperly charged the jury with reference to the effect of the signal [863]*863light upon the drivers of the cars in question. According to the charge, the effect of the signal light was made to depend upon the adoption of the light by the drivers of the cars, and the jury might have found that the defendant was not negligent even though he entered the intersection in the face of a red light. It was conceded by the parties that the signal light was in operation. The question of the adoption of the light by the parties was not in the case. Furthermore, prejudicial error was committed at folio 691 in permitting testimony to the effect that the plaintiff Joseph Sindlinger stated he had been in previous accidents. The court is also of the opinion that the verdicts are against the weight of the evidence. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sindlinger-v-bolton-nyappdiv-1933.