Case Name: Adolpho Corsale, an Infant, Etc., Appellant, v. Adele Facini et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-07
Citations: 60 Misc. 100
Docket Number: 
Parties: Adolpho Corsale, an Infant, Etc., Appellant, v. Adele Facini et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 100–102

Head Matter:
Adolpho Corsale, an Infant, Etc., Appellant, v. Adele Facini et al., Respondents.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
July, 1908.)
Judgment — Rendition—At particular stages of the~action— Judgment on dismissal.
Negligence—Actions — Evidence — Presumptions and "burden of proof — Upon question of sui juris of plaintiff.
The court, in an action to recover for personal injuries to a child between eight and nine years of age who, while crossing a •street in the middle of the block, was run over by a wagon, is not justified in holding as matter of law that the plaintiff was sui juris.
Whether the child was sui juris or non sui juris was a question of fact to be determined by the evidence in view of the circumstances and the child’s capacity and ability to take care of himself, the burden of proof being upon plaintiff to show that he was non sui juris.
Upon failure to sustain this burden of proof, a dismissal of the complaint would have been proper; but the direction of a verdict for defendants, upon the assumption that plaintiff was sui juris, was error, as the plaintiff’s failure of proof might have been supplied upon another trial.
Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendants, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, first district, borough of Manhattan.
Henry C. Burnstine, for appellant.
Frank V. Johnson (Allan E. Brosmith, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Seabury, J.
The plaintiff at the time of the accident was eight years of age. Whether he was sui juris or non sui juris was a question of fact to be determined by the evidence, in view of the existing circumstances and the child's capacity and ability to take care of himself. The law indulged no presumption one way or the other on this subject. Upon the evidence before the court below, it was not justified in deciding as a matter of law that the infant was sui juris at the time of the accident. Stone v. Dry Dock, East Broadway R. R. Co., 115 N. Y. 104. Consequently, it was error for the court to direct a verdict for the defendants. In directing a verdict for the defendants, the court necessarily assumed that the infant was sui juris. This assumption the court had no right to make. The question was purely one of fact and should have been submitted to the jury for their determination. It is true, where the circumstances would not justify a recovery unless the infant was non sui juris, the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove this fact. If the plaintiff failed in sustaining this burden of proof, proper practice required the dismissal of the complaint, not a direction of a verdict for the defendants. The omission to prove this fact was a mere failure of proof which might have been supplied upon another trial.
The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Gildersleeve, J., concurs.