Case Name: CORSALE v. FACINI et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-06-30
Citations: 111 N.Y.S. 779
Docket Number: 
Parties: CORSALE v. FACINI et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 111
Pages: 779–780

Head Matter:
CORSALE v. FACINI et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 30, 1908.)
1. Negligence—Children—Care Required—Question for Jury.
In an action by an infant eight years old for injuries from being run over by a wagon, the law indulges no presumption as to whether the infant was or was not sui juris; but that is a question of fact, to be determined in view of the circumstances and the child’s capacity and ability to take care of himself.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent Dig. vol. 37, Negligence, §§ 347, 348.]
2. Same.
An infant eight years old, who was run over by a wagon, held, under the evidence, not as a matter of law sui juris at the time of the accident
3. Trial—Direction of Verdict.
In an action by an infant for personal injuries, if the circumstances would not justify a recovery unless he was non sui juris, the burden would be upon him to prove that fact and, if he failed, proper practice would require the dismissal of the complaint and not a directed verdict for defendant, since the omission would be a mere failure of proof, which might be supplied on another trial.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
Action by Adolpho Corsale, an infant, etc., against Adele Facini and another for personal injuries. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN and SEA-BURY, JJ.
Henry C. Burnstine, for appellant.
Frank V. Johnson (Allan E. Brosmith, of counsel), for respondents.

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, E. B. & B. R. R. Co., 115 N. Y. 104, 21 N. E. 712. Consequently it was error for the court to direct a verdict for the defendant. In directing a verdict for the defendant, 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 fqct. 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 defendant. 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.
GIEDERSEEEVE, P. J., concurs.