Holmberg v. Donohue

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: Holmberg v. Donohue, 24 A.D.2d 569, 262 N.Y.S.2d 127 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)
• Decision Date: 06 July 1965
• Parties: Janet HOLMBERG, Respondent, v. Edward J. DONOHUE and William J. Donohue, Appellants.

Page 127

262 N.Y.S.2d 127

24 A.D.2d 569

Janet HOLMBERG, Respondent, v. Edward J. DONOHUE and William J. Donohue, Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 6, 1965.

Clune & Furey, Mineola, for appellants; James M. O'Brien, Cohoes, of counsel.

Julio J. Marino, Great Neck, for respondent.

Before BELDOCK, P. J., and UGHETTA, CHRIST, RABIN and BENJAMIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 2, 1964, upon an order of the court directing a verdict as to liability in favor of the plaintiff, and upon the jury's verdict of $7,000 on the issue of damages.

Judgment reversed on the law and facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

In our opinion, the trial court erred in directing a verdict sua sponte in plaintiff's favor at the close of the entire case. The court was required to take the view of the evidence most favorable to the defendants, and, from the evidence and inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom, to determine whether under the law a verdict might be found for the defendants (Merchants Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Syracuse v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., 18 A.D.2d 772, 235 N.Y.S.2d 83). The test is not whether a verdict for the defendants would be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence, but whether by any rational process the jury could find for the defendants (Prince v. City of New York, 21 A.D.2d 668, 250 N.Y.S.2d 107).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendants, we find that the evidence was sufficient to make the issue of their negligence a question of fact for the jury. Upon the evidence, the jury might well have concluded that immediately prior to the accident the defendant Edward J. Donohue was confronted with an emergency and that under the conditions then prevailing his actions were reasonable and did not...