Case ID: ny-st-rep_75/html/1507-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Regan, Respondent, v. Ehrich et al., Appellants.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    October 30, 1896.)
    Action by Cornelius F. Regan against Samuel W. Ehrich and another. F. C. Eustice, for appellants. A. P. Wagener, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

—Upon this appeal appellants urge a reversal for the reason, as they argue, that the evidence shows contributory negligence by plaintiff. We have carefully examined the record, and cannot agree with appellant’s contention. There is nothing in the appeal record which would justify us in declaring the finding of the jury that plaintiff was not guilty of negligence was wrong. We always favor upholding the finding of a jury upon a question of fact unless it is clearly and indisputably apparent that the jury were influenced by sympathy, prejudice, passion, or disregard of evidence,—something which, in our judgment, did not happen herein. Judgment must be affirmed, with costs.