Werner v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Werner v. Hertz Corp.

18 A.D.2d 888, 237 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4452

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 888 (Werner v. Hertz Corp.) 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

Werner v. Hertz Corp., 18 A.D.2d 888, 237 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment entered on June 7, 1962, in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $14,210 in a personal injury action, unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, in the exercise of discretion; and in the interests of justice, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. It was prejudicial error to defendants for the court to charge the jury in substance, thrice, that before plaintiff went to the side of his car to place some purchases in the rear portion thereof he looked north on Ninth Avenue,; he saw no vehicle approaching, and he saw the light was red. There was no testimony that the light was red at any time. Although there was no exception, the interests of justice require that a new trial should be had. It is also noted that some of the medical claims advanced by plaintiff were against the weight of the evidence in that there was no credible testimony to show causal connection. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Noonan, JJ.

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

Judgment entered on June 7, 1962, in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $14,210 in a personal injury action, unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, in the exercise of discretion; and in the interests of justice, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. It was prejudicial error to defendants for the court to charge the jury in substance, thrice, that before plaintiff went to the side of his car to place some purchases in the rear portion thereof he looked north on Ninth Avenue,; he saw no vehicle approaching, and he saw the light was red. There was no testimony that the light was red at any time. Although there was no exception, the interests of justice require that a new trial should be had. It is also noted that some of the medical claims advanced by plaintiff were against the weight of the evidence in that there was no credible testimony to show causal connection. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Noonan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 888, 237 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/werner-v-hertz-corp-nyappdiv-1963.