Tyson v. Bittner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tyson v. Bittner

3 A.D.2d 861, 161 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5786

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

DecidedApril 22, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 A.D.2d 861 (Tyson v. Bittner) 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

Tyson v. Bittner, 3 A.D.2d 861, 161 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained when a motor vehicle owned and operated by appellant struck respondent, a pedestrian, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for $10,000 in favor 'of respondent. Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. It was error to exclude the entry in the nurses’ notes in the hospital record that respondent was “ apparently intoxicated” (Williams v. Alexander, 309 N. T. 283; Meed v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America, 123 F. 2d 252; D’Amato v. Johnson, 140 Conn. 54; Leonard v. Boston El. By. Go., 234 Mass. 480). The interpretation and significance of the entry were matters for the jury. We cannot say that the erroneous exclusion did not affect, and could not have affected, the verdict. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldoek, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, 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 personal injuries alleged to have been sustained when a motor vehicle owned and operated by appellant struck respondent, a pedestrian, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for $10,000 in favor 'of respondent. Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. It was error to exclude the entry in the nurses’ notes in the hospital record that respondent was “ apparently intoxicated” (Williams v. Alexander, 309 N. T. 283; Meed v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America, 123 F. 2d 252; D’Amato v. Johnson, 140 Conn. 54; Leonard v. Boston El. By. Go., 234 Mass. 480). The interpretation and significance of the entry were matters for the jury. We cannot say that the erroneous exclusion did not affect, and could not have affected, the verdict. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldoek, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 861, 161 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyson-v-bittner-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack