From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wunderlich v. Hipper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 19, 1970
35 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Opinion

October 19, 1970


In consolidated negligence and wrongful death actions to recover damages, defendant Hipper appeals from so much of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 20, 1969, as is in favor of plaintiffs against him and in favor of defendant Mitani against plaintiffs on the issues of liability only, upon a jury verdict. Appeal dismissed insofar as it is from the portion of the interlocutory judgment which is in favor of defendant Mitani, with costs to said defendant against appellant (cf. Resseque v. J M K Constr. Corp., 31 A.D.2d 755; Helou v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 25 A.D.2d 179, mot. for lv. to app. den. 17 N.Y.2d 424). Judgment reversed insofar as it is in favor of plaintiffs against defendant Hipper, on the law, and, as between said parties, action severed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The court has considered the questions of fact and has determined that it would not grant a new trial upon those questions. In our opinion, the original charge to the jury, to which appellant excepted, was clearly erroneous in that the jury was instructed that no such thing as an unavoidable accident existed. That error was not repaired by the subsequent charge on the recall of the jury; and, indeed, the attempted clarification created greater confusion. Appellant also excepted to that subsequent charge. "To obviate an erroneous instruction upon a material point, it must be withdrawn in such explicit terms as to preclude the inference that the jury might have been influenced by it" ( Chapman v. Erie Ry. Co., 55 N.Y. 579, 587; see, also, Smulczeski v. City Center of Music and Drama, 3 N.Y.2d 498, 501). The issue of the negligence of the parties was before the jury in the context of chain rear-end collisions between several automobiles traveling in the same direction on a traffic congested parkway which was wet from rain. Hence, the trial court's erroneous and confused charges assumed importance in the determination of the issue of negligence by the jury (cf. Zwilling v. Harrison, 269 N.Y. 461, 463) and we cannot say that the jury was not influenced by them. Rabin, Acting P.J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Benjamin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wunderlich v. Hipper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 19, 1970
35 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)
Case details for

Wunderlich v. Hipper

Case Details

Full title:RENA WUNDERLICH et al., Respondents, v. JOHN HIPPER, Appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 19, 1970

Citations

35 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Citing Cases

Thrower v. Smith

However, the trial court should not have resubmitted the case to the jury without taking steps to correct the…

Safdie v. City of New York

The trial court instructed the jury that if it found that the deceased's negligence caused or contributed to…