Vecchio v. Beerly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vecchio v. Beerly

251 A.D. 785, 296 N.Y.S. 78, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7507

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

DecidedMay 5, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D. 785 (Vecchio v. Beerly) 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

Vecchio v. Beerly, 251 A.D. 785, 296 N.Y.S. 78, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, ■with costs. Memorandum: After the court had charged the jury and while requests to charge were being considered the court instructed the jury as follows: “ If you find that the driver of the vehicle found herself suddenly placed in an emergency which was not of her own creation, she was thereafter charged only with the duty of exercising her best judgment.” We find the technical error in the instructions quoted not to be a basis for reversal in view of the full statement of the standard of care included in the main charge. All concur. (The judgment is for defendant in an automobile negligence action.) Present —■ Sears, P. J., Edgeomb, Crosby, Lewis and Cunningham, JJ.

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

Judgment affirmed, ■with costs. Memorandum: After the court had charged the jury and while requests to charge were being considered the court instructed the jury as follows: “ If you find that the driver of the vehicle found herself suddenly placed in an emergency which was not of her own creation, she was thereafter charged only with the duty of exercising her best judgment.” We find the technical error in the instructions quoted not to be a basis for reversal in view of the full statement of the standard of care included in the main charge. All concur. (The judgment is for defendant in an automobile negligence action.) Present —■ Sears, P. J., Edgeomb, Crosby, Lewis and Cunningham, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D. 785, 296 N.Y.S. 78, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vecchio-v-beerly-nyappdiv-1937.