Case Name: BONITO v. H. E. TAYLOR & CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-05-31
Citations: 135 N.Y.S. 742
Docket Number: 
Parties: BONITO v. H. E. TAYLOR & CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 135
Pages: 742–743

Head Matter:
BONITO v. H. E. TAYLOR & CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 31, 1912.)
New Trial (§ 70*)—Verdict—Right to Set Aside.
Where the evidence warranted the submission of the issue of contributory negligence,, the court was not justified in setting aside a verdict for the plaintiff on the ground that the finding that the deceased was free from contributory negligence was not sustained by the evidence.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see New Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 142, 143; Dec. Dig. § 70.*]
Scott and Dowling, JJ., dissenting.
♦For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Harriet Bonito, as administratrix, against H. E. Taylor ■ & Co. From an order setting aside a verdict for plaintiff, defendant ' appeals. Reversed, and verdict reinstated.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J„ and McLAUGHLIN, CLARKE, SCOTT, and DOWLING, JJ.
William Rand, Jr., of New York City, for appellant.
Frank X. Sullivan, of New York City, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We think that the question of contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury, and that the court was not justified in setting aside the verdict upon the ground that the finding that the deceased was free from contributory negligence was not sustained by the evidence. Order reversed, with costs, and verdict reinstated.
SCOTT and DOWLING, JJ., dissenting.