From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Avram v. Haddad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 1982
88 A.D.2d 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

June 14, 1982


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jordan, J.), entered March 13, 1981, which, after a jury trial, was in favor of plaintiffs in the principal amount of $5,400, upon a finding that the infant plaintiff was 70% negligent. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The infant plaintiff suffered a break of his left femur on January 9, 1976, allegedly as the result of the defendant's negligent operation of his motor vehicle. During the trial, the court admitted a police report into evidence, despite the fact that the subscribing officer did not witness the accident, and was unable to indicate the actual source of the information contained in the report. Since the report contained statements which were "relevant to ultimate issues of fact" the report's admission into evidence was prejudicial and constituted reversible error (see Murray v Donlan, 77 A.D.2d 337, 346). Furthermore, the court's failure to charge the jury that any negligence on the part of the infant plaintiff's older brother could not be imputed to the infant plaintiff, constituted reversible error, as it precluded the jury from fairly considering the issues presented (see Anchor Motor Frgt. v. Shapiro, 56 A.D.2d 573). Moreover, the court's supplemental charge which held the infant plaintiff accountable for understanding the provisions of the "cross-walk rule" was improper. A five-year-old child may not be charged with the understanding of such a rule (see Dugan v. Dieber, 32 A.D.2d 815; Rubin v. O'Donnell, 37 A.D.2d 858; Schaffner v. Rockmacher, 38 A.D.2d 835). Despite the earlier portions of the charge, which correctly set forth the duties of the infant plaintiff, portions of the charge were obviously conflicting, and the cumulative effect was prejudicial, requiring a new trial (see Dugan v Dieber, supra). We have considered plaintiffs' other contentions and find them to be without merit. Weinstein, J.P., Gulotta, O'Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Avram v. Haddad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 1982
88 A.D.2d 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

Avram v. Haddad

Case Details

Full title:DAVID AVRAM, an Infant, by His Father and Natural Guardian MARRELL AVRAM…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 14, 1982

Citations

88 A.D.2d 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Matter of Aetna Casualty Sur. Co. v. Stone

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme…

Mata v. Huntington Union Free School District

Not surprisingly, there is longstanding authority for the proposition that a five-year-old child lacks the…