Wetz v. Watkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wetz v. Watkins

272 A.D.2d 848

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

DecidedMay 7, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 848 (Wetz v. Watkins) 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

Wetz v. Watkins, 272 A.D.2d 848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court made at Trial Term, Broome County, which set aside as inadequate a jury verdict of $2,000 against him and in plaintiff’s favor on account of personal injuries in an automobile negligence action. The trial .court assigned no other reason for vacating the jury’s appraisal of plaintiff’s damages. A valid reason for the order, therefore, must be found in the evidence as to the nature and extent of injuries plaintiff is alleged to have sustained. Plaintiff’s medical proofs were severely controverted by the defendant’s. It was plainly within the jury’s province to have accepted the latter.and in that light to have appraised the plaintiff’s damages. The verdict imports they did so. Having done so, there is naught to show a valid ground for the order appealed from. .Order reversed and verdict reinstated on- the law and the facts, with $25 costs and disbursements. Brewster, Foster and Russell, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., and -Heffernan, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

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

Defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court made at Trial Term, Broome County, which set aside as inadequate a jury verdict of $2,000 against him and in plaintiff’s favor on account of personal injuries in an automobile negligence action. The trial .court assigned no other reason for vacating the jury’s appraisal of plaintiff’s damages. A valid reason for the order, therefore, must be found in the evidence as to the nature and extent of injuries plaintiff is alleged to have sustained. Plaintiff’s medical proofs were severely controverted by the defendant’s. It was plainly within the jury’s province to have accepted the latter.and in that light to have appraised the plaintiff’s damages. The verdict imports they did so. Having done so, there is naught to show a valid ground for the order appealed from. .Order reversed and verdict reinstated on- the law and the facts, with $25 costs and disbursements. Brewster, Foster and Russell, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., and -Heffernan, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wetz-v-watkins-nyappdiv-1947.