Simmons v. Stiles
| Decision Date | 21 February 1974 |
| Parties | Robert SIMMONS, Jr., by his father, Robert Simmons, Sr., Appellant, v. Everest STILES, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Brown, Clements & Silver, Morristown (Mahlon T. Clements, Morristown, of counsel), for appellant.
Willmott, Aylward, Wisner, McAloon & Scanlon, Watertown (Daniel Scanlon, Jr., Watertown, of counsel), for respondent.
Before GREENBLOTT, J.P., and COOKE, SWEENEY, KANE and MAIN, JJ.
GREENBLOTT, Justice Presiding.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered October 6, 1971 in St. Lawrence County, upon a jury verdict rendered in favor of defendant.
On the night of July 7, 1968, plaintiff was riding as a passenger on defendant's motorcycle. As the vehicle approached a portion of the road which curves to the left up a slight grade, the motorcycle failed to negotiate the curve, left the road on the right side, and struck a road sign set on steel posts just prior to the curve. Plaintiff suffered personal injuries and brought this law suit to recover for lost wages, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. Defendant was also injured, leading to amnesia which deprived him of any recollection of the accident.
At the conclusion of the trial and immediately after the court's charge to the jury, plaintiff requested an additional charge that if the jury found that the vehicle was in defendant's control and if the circumstances were such that an accident would not have occurred in the ordinary course of events if the respondent had used reasonable care under the circumstances, 'then the jury would be permitted but is not required to infer negligence from the happening of the accident.' The court recognized that plaintiff's request was for a charge of the rule of Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 132, 269 N.Y.S.2d 115, 216 N.E.2d 324, and denied the request upon the ground that Pfaffenbach was inapplicable.
We disagree. In Pfaffenbach (supra), the plaintiff was a passenger in a northbound automobile which was struck by the defendant's southbound truck when the latter crossed into the northbound lane. The defendant gave no explanation for the accident, and the Court of Appeals said that by 'showing this and nothing more, a case of negligence is made out prima facie sufficient to go to the jury to determine liability' (Supra at 135, 269 N.Y.S.2d at 116, 216 N.E.2d at 325). In Warrick v. Oliver, 38 A.D.2d 664, 327 N.Y.S.2d 219, this court applied Pfaffenbach in a suit by a passenger against the operator of the vehicle in which plaintiff had been riding when such vehicle left the road and struck a tree, and granted a new trial because the trial court had failed to instruct the jury that the burden of going forward with proof had shifted to the defendant to explain that the accident resulted from conditions over which defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearson v. Racette
...to, still present a question of law for this court to review." (internal quotation and citations omitted)); Simmons v. Stiles, 43 A.D.2d 417, 418, 353 N.Y.S.2d 257, 259 (1974) (citing Clark v. Donovan, 34 A.3.2d 1099, 1099, 312 N.Y.S.2d 610, 610 (1970)) ("since the trial court'sfailure to c......
-
DiGrazia v. Castronova
...case, in the interest of justice, the court may order a new trial, though no objection or exception was taken (Simmons v. Stiles, 43 A.D.2d 417, 418, 353 N.Y.S.2d 257, 259; Rivera v. W. & R. Serv. Sta., 34 A.D.2d 115, 117, 309 N.Y.S.2d 274, 276; Van v. Clayburn, 21 A.D.2d 144, 147, 249 N.Y.......
-
Novis v. Sheinkin
...Livaccari v. Zafonte, 48 A.D.2d 20, 367 N.Y.S.2d 808, app. withdrawn 37 N.Y.2d 807, 375 N.Y.S.2d 570, 338 N.E.2d 327; Simmons v. Stiles, 43 A.D.2d 417, 353 N.Y.S.2d 257.) The situation is no different where, as here, an explanation as to the happening of the accident has been offered (see P......