Steitz v. Gifford

• Court: New York Court of Appeals
• Citation: 280 N.Y. 15,19 N.E.2d 661
• Parties: STEITZ v. GIFFORD.
• Decision Date: 28 February 1939

280 N.Y. 15
19 N.E.2d 661

STEITZ
v.
GIFFORD.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 28, 1939.

Action by John Steitz against Benedict Gifford to recover damages for personal injuries, special damages arising out of plaintiff's alleged inability to pursue profitably his special occupation, damages to truck and trailer and for loss of load of produce being transported at time of collision between motortruck and automobile. From a judgment entered upon the order of the Appellate Division, Third Department, 254 App.Div. 715, 4 N.Y.S.2d 145, affirming by a divided court the judgment of the Trial Term in favor of plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

[19 N.E.2d 662]

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third department.
Irving I. Goldsmith, of Saratoga Springs, Monroe Collenburg and Adolph F. Bruenner, both of New York City, for appellant.

Harold V. A. Drumm, of Chatham, for respondent.

RIPPEY, Judge.

The defendant appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division, third department, affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court at a Trial Term for Columbia county in favor of the plaintiff for $4,470.55 damages arising out of an automobile accident. There were four causes of action set up in the complaint; the first cause was for personal injuries to the plaintiff; the second, for special damages arising out of his alleged inability to pursue profitably his special occupation because of his injuries; the third, for damages to his truck and trailer; and the fourth, for the loss of the load of produce he was transporting at the time of the accident. Defendant admitted liability for the accident and the only matter litigated was the question of damages. The only question open for consideration

[19 N.E.2d 663]

in this court is the propriety of the award of damages under the second cause of action.

The accident happened between 9 and 10 o'clock of the evening of August 12, 1933. Plaintiff was riding in a truck then being driven by an employee which was hauling a trailer loaded with sweet corn and pears en route to market to fulfill a contract for the sale of the corn, which contract required delivery not later than 4 o'clock on the morning of August 13th. Defendant's car ran into the truck head-on and demolished it and plaintiff received various bodily injuries.

Plaintiff was the operator of some four hundred acres of land planted to a special variety of sweet corn, its planting having been so arranged as to permit of its ripening, harvesting and delivery at different times. The corn upon eighty acres of this land ripened and delivery to market was required to be made during the week of August 13th. The plaintiff was, by education, training and experience, an expert in his particular line of work. He claimed that he had made arrangements to dispose of this eighty acres of sweet corn at $2 per hundred ears. It was stipulated on the trial that there were eight hundred thousand ears of corn upon this particular...