New York Transp. Co. v. O'Donnell
Decision Date | 11 February 1908 |
Docket Number | 145. |
Citation | 159 F. 659 |
Parties | NEW YORK TRANSP. CO. v. O'DONNELL. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Arthur K. Wing, for plaintiff in error.
R. J Donovan (Herbert D. Cohne, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the death of William O'Donnell, resulting from injuries received in a collision with an automobile owned and operated by the defendant upon or near the Plaza, New York, in January, 1905. The basis of the action stated in the complaint was the negligence of the defendant's chauffeur. The answer denied the allegations of negligence, and charged contributory negligence.
Upon the trial the court charged the jury with respect to the questions of negligence and contributory negligence, and then went on to say:
Subsequently when the defendant excepted to this portion of the charge, the court said:
Thus, in substance, the court told the jury that if, when O'Donnell first saw the automobile he was in a position of imminent danger from it, the doctrine of contributory negligence did not come into the case-- that the only antecedent negligence then to be considered was that of the defendant. The charge was erroneous. It withdrew from the jury the question whether O'Donnell was negligent in getting into the place of danger. A person may be excused for making a mistake when suddenly confronted with imminent danger, provided-- and only provided-- he was without fault in getting into the dangerous situation. Under the very circumstances described by the court the question of the decedent's prior negligence, instead of being out of the case, was of primary importance. It is true that in other parts of the charge the court considered at length the question of contributory negligence. But this did not cure the error. However well the jury were instructed with respect to that doctrine, they were told not to apply their knowledge at the point where it was most important.
As a new trial must be had for this misdirection, it is unnecessary to consider the other questions raised upon the record.
There is error, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
COXE Circuit Judge (d...
To continue reading
Request your trial