Weng v. Gill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weng v. Gill

52 A.D.2d 923, 383 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12770

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

DecidedMay 17, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 923 (Weng v. Gill) 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

Weng v. Gill, 52 A.D.2d 923, 383 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., arising out of an intersectional two-car collision, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 5, 1975, in favor of defendants, upon the trial court’s granting of a motion (1) to set aside the verdicts in favor of plaintiffs and (2) to dismiss the complaint. Judgment reversed, with costs, and the jury verdicts are reinstated. The trial court determined, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff driver either did not look, or, having looked, did not see the approaching car in sufficient time to take precautionary steps and that she was therefore negligent. Clearly this was a question of fact, which the jury could, and did, fairly determine in plaintiff’s favor. The relative speeds of the two cars and the respective distances which they traversed were considerations for the jury to weigh in determining fault. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., arising out of an intersectional two-car collision, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 5, 1975, in favor of defendants, upon the trial court’s granting of a motion (1) to set aside the verdicts in favor of plaintiffs and (2) to dismiss the complaint. Judgment reversed, with costs, and the jury verdicts are reinstated. The trial court determined, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff driver either did not look, or, having looked, did not see the approaching car in sufficient time to take precautionary steps and that she was therefore negligent. Clearly this was a question of fact, which the jury could, and did, fairly determine in plaintiff’s favor. The relative speeds of the two cars and the respective distances which they traversed were considerations for the jury to weigh in determining fault. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 923, 383 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weng-v-gill-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack