From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Palmigiano v. Stiles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 8, 1953
282 App. Div. 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)

Opinion

July 8, 1953.

Present — McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.


Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Memorandum: The photographs received in evidence clearly show that the left front of defendant's car collided with the left rear of the taxicab, from which an inference might be drawn that the taxicab entered the intersection before the defendant's car. This inference might have been overcome in the minds of the jurors by other evidence, and in the absence of error we would accept the jury verdict. We conclude, however, that in a case of this kind even slight error in the court's charge may have affected the result. The court did not adequately charge the right of way rule. When requested to so charge he refused to do so. Appellant was entitled to the charge as requested and the court's failure to so charge was error. We cannot say that this was not prejudicial to appellant and a new trial must be granted. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment for defendant Stiles for no cause of action in an automobile negligence action. The order denied plaintiff's motion for a new trial.)


Summaries of

Palmigiano v. Stiles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 8, 1953
282 App. Div. 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)
Case details for

Palmigiano v. Stiles

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY R. PALMIGIANO et al., Appellants, v. RICHARD C. STILES, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 8, 1953

Citations

282 App. Div. 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)

Citing Cases

Sherwood v. Fleming

Clear cut questions of fact were presented and the court improperly instructed the jury that the defendant…

Maryinuk v. Pendell

Memorandum: The court's charge, to which appellant excepted, did not adequately state the right of way rules…