Zelasko v. Buffalo Transit Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zelasko v. Buffalo Transit Co.

10 A.D.2d 898, 199 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10777

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

DecidedApril 7, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 898 (Zelasko v. Buffalo Transit Co.) 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

Zelasko v. Buffalo Transit Co., 10 A.D.2d 898, 199 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs of this appeal w any party, and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendants appeal from iudgments entered in favor of plaintiffs in a personal injury action after jury verdicts and from orders denying their motions to set aside the verdicts and to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative to set aside the verdicts and grant an order for a new trial. The infant plaintiff was struck and injured by defendant, Transit Company’s passenger bus, which was being operated by its employee, defendant Lawson, on its bus parking lot. In its charge the trial court instructed the jury: “ The plaintiffs cannot recover unless you so find that there was unlawful or wanton negligence on the part of the driver, because the plaintiff, from her description, was a licensee on that property or a trespasser.” No objection having been made by the plaintiffs, that charge became the law of the case. (Leonard v. Home Owners’ Loan Corp., 297 N. Y. 103; Buckin v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 286 N. Y. 146.) The verdict of the jury that there was unlawful or wanton negligence on the part of the driver was contrary to the evidence and should be set aside. However, rather than dismiss the complaint, we are granting a new trial. We are so inclined because plaintiffs may be able to establish in a new trial that the infant plaintiff was a [899]*899licensee on defendant’s premises and that her injuries were caused !by such active negligence on the part of the operator of the bus as to render the defendants liable therefor. (See Barry v. New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 92 N. Y. 289; Byrne v. New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 104 N. Y. 362; Barrett v. Brooklyn Hghts. R. R. Co., 188 App. Div. 109, affd. 231 N. Y. 605; Carney v. Buyea, 271 App. Div. 338; Restatement, Torts, § 341; Prosser, Torts [2d ed.], p. 448; Notes 49 A. L. R. 778; 156 A. L. R. 1226.) (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie Trial Term against both defendants in favor of plaintiffs in a bus line negligence action. The order denied motions to set aside the verdicts and dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint or, in the alternative, for a new trial.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpem and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs of this appeal w any party, and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendants appeal from iudgments entered in favor of plaintiffs in a personal injury action after jury verdicts and from orders denying their motions to set aside the verdicts and to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative to set aside the verdicts and grant an order for a new trial. The infant plaintiff was struck and injured by defendant, Transit Company’s passenger bus, which was being operated by its employee, defendant Lawson, on its bus parking lot. In its charge the trial court instructed the jury: “ The plaintiffs cannot recover unless you so find that there was unlawful or wanton negligence on the part of the driver, because the plaintiff, from her description, was a licensee on that property or a trespasser.” No objection having been made by the plaintiffs, that charge became the law of the case. (Leonard v. Home Owners’ Loan Corp., 297 N. Y. 103; Buckin v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 286 N. Y. 146.) The verdict of the jury that there was unlawful or wanton negligence on the part of the driver was contrary to the evidence and should be set aside. However, rather than dismiss the complaint, we are granting a new trial. We are so inclined because plaintiffs may be able to establish in a new trial that the infant plaintiff was a [899]*899licensee on defendant’s premises and that her injuries were caused !by such active negligence on the part of the operator of the bus as to render the defendants liable therefor. (See Barry v. New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 92 N. Y. 289; Byrne v. New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 104 N. Y. 362; Barrett v. Brooklyn Hghts. R. R. Co., 188 App. Div. 109, affd. 231 N. Y. 605; Carney v. Buyea, 271 App. Div. 338; Restatement, Torts, § 341; Prosser, Torts [2d ed.], p. 448; Notes 49 A. L. R. 778; 156 A. L. R. 1226.) (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie Trial Term against both defendants in favor of plaintiffs in a bus line negligence action. The order denied motions to set aside the verdicts and dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint or, in the alternative, for a new trial.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpem and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 898, 199 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zelasko-v-buffalo-transit-co-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack