From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clay v. Monington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 3, 1943
266 App. Div. 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 1943)

Opinion

March 3, 1943.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Schoharie County.


Plaintiff was nonsuited as to the defendant The Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Company at the close of his case. The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action as to the other two defendants. Plaintiff appeals from both judgments. This was a closely contested automobile accident case in which the speed of the defendants' truck was an important factor. Plaintiff's car was struck, as it came out of the driveway on the north side of a two-strip concrete highway, by a truck on which was painted the name of the defendant Tea Company and which was delivering goods for the Tea Company. The trial court excluded evidence of a disinterested witness, as to the speed of the truck, who saw the truck traveling for a distance of 300 feet when it was 700 feet from the scene of the accident. This was error. The plaintiff was also denied a reasonable opportunity to further cross-examine a State trooper, who was a witness for the defendant and who, it was claimed, had made a written report of the accident contradictory to his direct testimony. Judgments and orders reversed on the law and facts, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, and a new trial granted. All concur.


Summaries of

Clay v. Monington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 3, 1943
266 App. Div. 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 1943)
Case details for

Clay v. Monington

Case Details

Full title:FRED CLAY, Appellant, v. EDGAR MONINGTON et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Mar 3, 1943

Citations

266 App. Div. 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 1943)

Citing Cases

Christie v. Mitchell

[Citations.] And the competency of such testimony does not always depend entirely upon specific distance or…

Camardo v. Nuccitelli

Such restriction constituted reversible error. ( Chopak v. Walker, 275 App. Div. 669; Clay v. Monington, 266…