Tanner v. Schoenbeck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tanner v. Schoenbeck

231 A.D. 852, 246 N.Y.S. 617

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 231 A.D. 852 (Tanner v. Schoenbeck) 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

Tanner v. Schoenbeck, 231 A.D. 852, 246 N.Y.S. 617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event, upon the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff claimed that he was standing between the north-bound and south-bound car tracks when he was struck, but had no knowledge of what struck him. Defendant’s car was coming in a southerly direction, and defendant and a witness testified that as they were passing plaintiff he retraced his steps and ran into the car. PlaintiS’s testimony indicates that at the time of the trial he did not know whether or not he did step back. Under these circumstances the conclusion of the jury is against the weight of the evidence. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

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

Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event, upon the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff claimed that he was standing between the north-bound and south-bound car tracks when he was struck, but had no knowledge of what struck him. Defendant’s car was coming in a southerly direction, and defendant and a witness testified that as they were passing plaintiff he retraced his steps and ran into the car. PlaintiS’s testimony indicates that at the time of the trial he did not know whether or not he did step back. Under these circumstances the conclusion of the jury is against the weight of the evidence. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D. 852, 246 N.Y.S. 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanner-v-schoenbeck-nyappdiv-1930.