From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Young v. Hackett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 24, 1975
49 A.D.2d 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)

Opinion

October 24, 1975

Appeal from the Erie Trial Term.

Present, — Marsh, P.J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Del Vecchio, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The jury's verdict is supported by the credible evidence in the record that plaintiff husband failed to bring his vehicle to a full stop at the stop sign controlling traffic entering Niagara Falls Boulevard but instead drove his vehicle into the path of the oncoming defendant's car when defendant was three or four car lengths, or less, away from the intersection. While it was error for the court to deny counsel's requested charge that the negligence of plaintiff husband may not be imputed to his passenger wife riding in the back seat and exercising no control over the operation of the vehicle (Iwanicki v Muszynski, 33 A.D.2d 654; Bartholomew v Zinni, 25 A.D.2d 480), the error was harmless (McLean v Triboro Coach Corp., 302 N.Y. 49; Bell v Wick Motor Sales, 29 A.D.2d 628; Griswold v Newman, 259 App. Div. 111 1). The form of the jury's verdict makes it clear that the case was not decided on the basis of contributory negligence but rather the failure to prove that the defendant was negligent.


Summaries of

Young v. Hackett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 24, 1975
49 A.D.2d 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)
Case details for

Young v. Hackett

Case Details

Full title:GENE A. YOUNG et al., Appellants, v. CLARENCE A. HACKETT, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 24, 1975

Citations

49 A.D.2d 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)

Citing Cases

Chodos v. Flanzer

In any event, any error in the court's contributory negligence charge would have been harmless. The verdict…