From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dugan v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 25, 1953
281 App. Div. 1044 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)

Opinion

May 25, 1953.


Action to recover damages for personal injuries and medical expenses. Plaintiff's injuries were alleged to have been sustained when defendant's automobile, in which plaintiff was a passenger, crashed into a telephone or telegraph pole. On the trial plaintiff proved that she had sustained serious and permanent injuries and that she had incurred medical expenses amounting to $500. Defendant offered no evidence to dispute such proof. The jury rendered a verdict in plaintiff's favor for $1,500, and she appeals from the judgment entered thereon, on the ground that the verdict is inadequate. Judgment reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event, unless within ten days from the entry of the order hereon defendant stipulate to increase the verdict to $3,500, in which event the judgment as so increased is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the verdict is against the weight of the evidence as to the amount of damages. The cross-examination as to the relationship between the parties was permissible solely insofar as such relationship might tend to affect plaintiff's credibility, and comments thereon by defendant's attorney should have been limited to its bearing on her credibility. Carswell, Acting P.J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Dugan v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 25, 1953
281 App. Div. 1044 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)
Case details for

Dugan v. Murphy

Case Details

Full title:ANNA DUGAN, Appellant, v. DAVID MURPHY, Respondent

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

Date published: May 25, 1953

Citations

281 App. Div. 1044 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)

Citing Cases

O'Connor v. Papertsian

Indeed there does not appear to have been a case in the first department in which the court has conditionally…