Von Hulse v. Schmiemann
221 A.D. 768
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1927·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
Judgment reversed upon the law, and new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. It was error for the court to charge the jury as requested by plaintiff’s counsel at folios 687 and 688. The question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence was a close one, and the charge that the advanced age of the plaintiff might be considered in fixing what would be reasonable exercise of care on Ms part, was clearly erroneous. Kelly, P. J., Young, Kapper, Lazansky and Hagarty, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Von Hulse v. Schmiemann, 221 A.D. 768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).
221 A.D. 768 (Von Hulse v. Schmiemann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Harran v. State
9 A.D.2d 31 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)