Salsberg v. MODERN TRANSFER COMPANY
| Decision Date | 26 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | Dockets 27638,No. 61,62,27639.,61 |
| Citation | 324 F.2d 737 |
| Parties | Oscar SALSBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MODERN TRANSFER COMPANY, Inc., and Samuel L. Lebovitz, Defendants-Appellees. Saul RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MODERN TRANSFER COMPANY, Inc., and Samuel L. Lebovitz, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Louis Rothbard, Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Edward Ash, New York City (Alexander, Ash & Schwartz, New York City, on the brief) (Sidney A. Schwartz and William N. Mairs, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Before WATERMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.
These are appeals from judgments for defendants in typical diversity cases involving an automobile collision in the State of Pennsylvania. The judgments resulted from a jury trial of two consolidated cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Cooper, J. The facts material to these appeals are not complex. Plaintiff Saul Rodriguez was the driver of one car in which plaintiff Oscar Salsberg, president of Rodriguez's employer corporation, was a passenger. The other car was owned by defendant Modern Transfer Company and operated by its president, Samuel L. Lebovitz. The road was slippery and icy in spots; there was considerable dispute in the testimony as to rate of speed of the respective cars, the extent of visibility, and there was a marked dispute as to which car was over the center dividing line at the time of impact. Plaintiffs-appellants urge four grounds for reversal: error in admission in evidence of a diagram; failure of the court to answer a question asked by the jury; submission to the jury of the sudden emergency rule and exclusion of proffered testimony of Pennsylvania law by a Pennsylvania lawyer. We find no merit in any of these claims and affirm.
Sometime between 30 and 45 minutes after the accident Pennsylvania State Trooper Plummer arrived on the scene and talked with the occupants of both cars except Oscar Salsberg who was unconscious. He also observed the condition of the cars and the road. He then prepared an "accident investigation report" required by law and filed it. The report was on a printed form consisting of two pages with printed questions and handwritten answers on one page and a blank form of diagram or sketch to give approximate location of the cars on the second page. On the night before the trial, plaintiffs' attorney met with the state trooper in a hotel in New York. In order to better explain the diagram to plaintiffs' attorney, the state trooper marked on the diagram three short lines showing the center line, the Rodriguez car and the apparent direction of the car. The state trooper,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Smith
...have found that a police record constitutes a business record within the meaning of the Act. See, e. g., Salsberg v. Modern Transfer Co., 2 Cir., 324 F.2d 737 (1963) (Marshall, J.); Bowman v. Kaufman, 2 Cir., 387 F.2d 582 (1967); United States v. Burruss, 4 Cir., 418 F.2d 677 (1969); United......
-
Yates v. Bair Transport, Inc.
...Mamiye Bros. v. Barber S. S. Lines, Inc., 241 F.Supp. 99, 116 (S.D. N.Y.1965). While at first glance the case of Salsberg v. Modern Transfer Co., 324 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1963), would appear to be contrary to the "duty of the declarant" requirement, a closer reading of the trial transcript and......
-
Bowman v. Kaufman
...made by a police officer in the performance of his official duty comes within the scope of the federal statute, Salsberg v. Modern Transfer Co., 324 F.2d 737 (2 Cir. 1963); Hawkins v. Gorea Motor Express, Inc., 360 F.2d 933 (2 Cir. 4 Or the "aided card," which was similar to, and actually p......
-
Calhoun v. Chappell
...253 N.Y. 124, 170 N.E. 517. It is admissible whether used to attack the credibility of the investigating officer (Salsberg v. Modern Transfer Co., 2 Cir., 324 F.2d 737) or in conjunction with the testimony of the state trooper or policeman who prepared it in the first instance. Hawkins v. G......