Case Name: Anna Amundsen, as Administratrix, etc., of Julius Emil Amundsen, Deceased. Respondent, v. The Consolidated Forwarding and Building Material Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1923-03
Citations: 206 A.D. 601
Docket Number: 
Parties: Anna Amundsen, as Administratrix, etc., of Julius Emil Amundsen, Deceased. Respondent, v. The Consolidated Forwarding and Building Material Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 206
Pages: 601–602

Head Matter:
Anna Amundsen, as Administratrix, etc., of Julius Emil Amundsen, Deceased. Respondent, v. The Consolidated Forwarding and Building Material Company, Appellant.
Negligence — action for death caused by automobile accident -—• contributory negligence — evidence — question by plaintiff’s counsel framed to suggest to jury that insurance company was defending action.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office May 22, 1922, upon the verdict of a jury for $8,000, as amended by an order entered June 10, 1922, adding $277.24 interest, and also from an order, as resettled, entered May 31, 1922, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Dowling, Page, Merrell, Finch and McAvoy, JJ.; Merrell, J., dissenting.

Opinion:
Merrell, J. (dissenting):
I dissent upon the grounds: 1. There was no sufficient evidence presented upon the trial from which the jury could properly find that the death of plaintiff's intestate was caused by any negligence of defendant's chauffeur. 2. That the verdict of- the jury that plaintiff's intestate was free from contributory negligence was contrary to the evidence and against the weight of the evidence. 3. Error prejudicial to defendant was committed by the trial court in permitting counsel for the plaintiff, against the objection and exception of the defendant, to suggest in a question asked of defendant's witness Maguire who had written a letter to the decedent's widow that he did not write anything so that said widow could cheat the insurance company, it being manifest that the object of counsel's inquiry was to apprise the jury that the defense t.o plaintiff's claim was being carried on by and in the interest of an insurance company.